Planning Commission

AGENDA Meeting Location: Sloat Room—Atrium Building Phone: 541-682-5481 99 W. 10th Avenue www.eugene-or.gov/pc Eugene, OR 97401 The Eugene Planning Commission welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to come and go as you please at any of the meetings. This meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing impaired, FM assistive-listening devices are available or an interpreter can be provided with 48 hour notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hour notice. To arrange for these services, contact the Planning Division at 541-682-5675. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 – REGULAR MEETING (11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.) 11:30 a.m. I. PUBLIC COMMENT The Planning Commission reserves 10 minutes at the beginning of this meeting for public comment. The public may comment on any matter, except for items scheduled for public hearing or public hearing items for which the record has already closed. Generally, the time limit for public comment is three minutes; however, the Planning Commission reserves the option to reduce the time allowed each speaker based on the number of people requesting to speak. 11:40 a.m. II. EMPLOYMENT LANDS UPDATE/TOXICS PROGRAM OVERVIEW Staff: Terri Harding, 541-682-5635 Staff: Joann Eppli, 541-682-7118 12:25 p.m. III. SOUTH WILLAMETTE DESIGN CODE Staff: Jennifer Knapp, 541-682-5445 1:15 p.m. IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission C. Learning: How are we doing? Commissioners: Steven Baker; John Barofsky; Rick Duncan; John Jaworski (Vice-Chair); Jeffery Mills; Kristen Taylor; William Randall (Chair)  AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 29, 2014 To: Eugene Planning Commission From: Terri Harding, City of Eugene Planning Division Subject: Envision Eugene Implementation: UGB Expansion Planning in the Clear Lake Road Area ACTION REQUESTED This work session provides the Planning Commission with follow up information requested at the August 18th meeting, specifically about planning for jobs, parks and schools in the Clear Lake Road expansion study area. BRIEFING STATEMENT This meeting continues the conversation about planning for remaining land needs through an expansion of the UGB for jobs, parks, and schools in the Clear Lake Road area. Several activities are underway that will inform the location of the UGB, plan designations to apply in the area, and implementation actions that will follow UGB adoption. Upcoming work includes meeting with the Planning Commission subcommittee and members of the Sustainability Commission; stakeholder outreach; Technical Resource Group meetings; completion of an ESEE Analysis (Environmental, Social, Economic, and Energy) to evaluate the options of protecting the wetlands through Goal 5 natural resource regulations and Goal 6 water quality regulations. In August, the Commission reviewed the draft issue briefing on Environmental Justice. During the discussion, more information was requested on Eugene’s Toxics Right-to Know Program. Two maps from the August meeting are included here again, and today’s presentation from Jo Eppli will provide the requested toxics program overview. The Commission will have the opportunity to discuss how the program might inform future planning activities in industrial employment areas, starting with Clear Lake. NEXT STEPS A refined UGB recommendation is scheduled to be brought to the commission for review on October 13th and 27th. FOR MORE INFORMATION Terri Harding: 541-682-5635, terri.l.harding@ci.eugene.or.us ATTACHMENTS A. Industrial Emitters Reporting to Eugene or EPA: City of Eugene B. Example Buffers Around Industrial Emitters: Clear Lake Area 1 PC Agenda - Page 1  Attachment A 2 PC Agenda - Page 2  Attachment B 3 PC Agenda - Page 3 Memorandum Date: September 18, 2014 To: Eugene Planning Commission From: Joann C. Eppli, Toxics Right-to-Know Program Manager Subject: EUGENE TOXICS RIGHT-TO-KNOW PROGRAM OVERVIEW As a follow-up to your August 18, 2014 meeting, attached is a Fact Sheet on the Eugene Toxics Right-to-Know Program, which includes an overview of the program, program requirements, as well as significant dates and actions related to the program. I will be attending your September 29, 2014 meeting to review this document together in detail. Please contact me via email at joann.c.eppli@ci.eugene.or.us or via telephone at 541-682-7118 if you have questions or need additional information. jce/s Attachment: Eugene Toxics Right-to-Know Program Fact Sheet Cc w/Attachment: Eugene Toxics Board PC Agenda - Page 4  EUGENE TOXICS RIGHT-TO-KNOW PROGRAM FACT SHEET The Eugene Toxics Right-to-Know Program was created in 1996 by an amendment to the Eugene Charter that requires certain manufacturers to provide information to the public concerning the use and disposition of federally listed hazardous substances. This is a public information program, not a regulatory program. It is overseen by a seven-member volunteer citizen board appointed by the Eugene City Council: three employed by or are agents of businesses required to report under the law, three who have a proven record of environmental advocacy, and one who is nominated by at least four of the other six members. The program operates with only one paid staff position, and is fully-funded by fees assessed to local businesses that are hazardous substance users. The program requires reporting of chemicals that are federally listed in Sections 302 and 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA); the Clean Air Act (CAA); the Clean Water Act (CWA); the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Chemicals meeting federal definitions of hazardous waste for the characteristics of toxicity, reactivity, corrosivity, or ignitability are also reportable, even if they are not being disposed of as hazardous waste. A distinguishing characteristic of the program is materials balance accounting. For any reportable substance, for each year, a manufacturer must report inputs in four categories, and outputs in eleven categories, such that total inputs and total outputs are equivalent within the smallest accounting unit used by the program, which for hazardous substances is 2.2 pounds and for extremely hazardous substances is 0.022 pounds. In the United States, only the state of Massachusetts and the state of New Jersey have similar reporting requirements; no other municipality does. To learn more about the program go to: www.eugene-or.gov/toxics. To be required to report under the program, and pay a fee, a business must: 1. Operate a stationary facility located within the Eugene city limits; 2. Employ the equivalent of ten or more full-time employees; 3. Be engaged in manufacturing (within the Standard Industrial Classification Code categories #20 through #39); and 4. Have inputs totaling 2,640 pounds or more of hazardous substances in a calendar year. To be required to only pay a fee, a business must meet criteria 1 through 3 above. State and federal facilities and public educational institutions are exempted. Significant dates and actions related to the program:  1902—State of Oregon adopted citizen initiative laws.  1987—Eugene Nuclear Free Zone Ordinance.  1989—Oregon State Fire Marshal Preemption Laws in ORS 453.402. Page 1 of 2 PC Agenda - Page 5  EUGENE TOXICS RIGHT-TO-KNOW PROGRAM FACT SHEET  State Legislature provided that local toxics right-to-know programs may not charge a fee based on chemical quantities if those programs in any way duplicate the state-level right-to-know program.  1995—Announcement of construction of Hyundai microchip factory in Eugene.  1996—Eugene Toxics Right-to-Know Charter Amendment.  1996—Twelve-count lawsuit filed against the City of Eugene by Eugene Businesses.  1999—Oregon Court of Appeals Ruling.  Acting on the appeal of the lawsuit filed by local businesses soon after the passage of the charter amendment, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that Eugene had been assessing fees based on quantities of chemicals used, in violation of Oregon Revised Statutes. The City had been charging fees based on number of employees at each facility, but, in accordance with the charter amendment, had only been assessing fees to businesses meeting a certain quantity threshold. This practice was overturned by the court, and the City chose not to appeal further. The City decided to issue refunds to all businesses that had paid fees on that basis. Also as a result of the ruling, the provisions of the Eugene Charter Amendment IV governing chemicals listed pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and those chemicals defined as pesticides under ORS 634.006(8) are no longer reportable under the Eugene Toxics Right-to-Know Program.  1999—Eugene City Council adopts Eugene Code (EC) 3.690 to 3.696.  In order to adhere as closely as possible to the intent of the voters as expressed in the charter amendment, the City implemented a new type of fee structure not based on quantities of chemicals used, but instead assessed to manufacturers within the Eugene City limits with 10 or more full-time- equivalent employees, regardless of the quantity of hazardous substances used in their manufacturing processes. This resulted in a second tier of businesses being required to pay fees, but not being required to file reports. There are exemptions for companies using no hazardous substances at all. (See Eugene Code 3.692)  1999—State Legislature adopts House Bill 2431  This legislation imposes certain requirements on any local right-to-know program currently existing or that may be proposed in the State of Oregon, and resulted in Eugene being required to reduce its maximum fine for violations of the program from $25,000 per day to $1,000 per day. The City was also required to adopt a fine schedule indicating the severity of potential fines for different types of violations. Also as of the year 2002, the legislation required local jurisdictions including Eugene to give the state an opportunity to administer local reporting requirements.  2003—State-imposed fee cap of $2,000 per facility [provided by HB 2431] takes effect (ORS 453.370(2)(b)).  Imposed to contain the financial impact of the program on businesses. For example, in 1998, the highest fee was $14,927. In 1999, 10 companies paid more than $2,000 and the highest fee paid was $7,311. (The drop in 1999 was due to a reduction in the program’s revenue requirement following the labor- intensive startup phase.) Page 2 of 2 PC Agenda - Page 6  AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 29, 2014 To: Eugene Planning Commission From: Jennifer Knapp, City of Eugene Planning Division Subject: South Willamette Concept Plan Implementation: Draft Design Code ISSUE STATEMENT This work session is a continuation of previous discussions on May 5, May 19, June 2, June 23 and July 14, 21, 28 and September 8 regarding the development of the South Willamette Special Area Zone; for additional background, please see the AIS materials for these dates. This meeting will specifically cover the following topics: • Single Family Options land division standards • South Willamette Special Area Zone Design Review BACKGROUND Staff will also present preliminary concepts for land division standards to implement within the SFO subdistrict. In addition, staff will present a concept for Design Review as proposed to be applied within the entire South Willamette Special Area Zone. As we continue the review process, specific, actionable suggestions will be most useful for staff in crafting a code that meets the Planning Commission’s expectations. NEXT STEPS Following revisions based on Planning Commission review of the code concepts, a draft code will be introduced for public discussion later this fall. Community outreach will continue throughout the fall prior to review of the final draft code in the fall. A Community Workshop is scheduled for September 24, 2014. See the Draft Public Engagement Plan outline for more information (AIS 2014-07-14). ATTACHMENTS A. SFO Land Division Concepts B. Design Review Outline FOR MORE INFORMATION Jennifer Knapp at 541-682-5445 or Jennifer.L.Knapp@ci.eugene.or.us PC Agenda - Page 7  ATTACHMENT A Single Family Options – Land Division Concepts Topic Proposal Purpose Intent of land division is to encourage the creation of lots that can be purchased for home ownership. When Required - Land division approval (partition or subdivision) proposed to be required to allow for the creation of the following Single Family Options housing development types: Single-Family Detached, Rowhouse and Narrow Houses. - Land division proposed not to be required, but may be utilized for, the Courtyard and Cottage Cluster housing development types. - Applicant to commit to specific housing development type at land division Process/Criteria Land divisions to be subject to the current provisions in the Eugene Code for partitions and subdivisions, including process (Planning Director approval) and criteria. Any land division of three or more lots currently requires Neighborhood/Applicant meeting prior to submittal. Density Density to be based on development site for the housing development. Lot Standards Each housing development type to have specific lot standards, including lot area, frontage and width requirements. Lot standards for Courtyard and Cottage Cluster will be smaller than typical single family lots to allow for smaller homes and design flexibility, but will ensure that maximum density will not be exceeded. Shared Areas Required common open space areas and shared vehicle use areas (vehicle access location, driveway location and width, and location of required parking) for a development to be provided as separate lots/tracts or via easements over housing lots. The location of these areas must be shown on partition or subdivision plan. Site Plan As part of land division, applicant to submit a conceptual site plan demonstrating that the proposed lots can enable future development consistent with the following development standards: lot coverage, building setbacks, building size and dwelling unit size. PC Agenda - Page 8  ATTACHMENT B South Willamette Special Area Zone – Design Review Concepts Topic Proposal Purpose Consistent with the Envision Eugene recommendations, an alternative design review process is proposed to allow broader design freedom as well as discretion in applying design standards. The intent is to provide an elective process that developers can choose instead of meeting all of the clear and objective standards at the time of building permit review. Design Review would provide a path for development proposals that creatively meet or exceed the design standards (but would not provide for standards to just be waived). Process Because Design Review necessarily involves the application of discretion due to the nature of the criteria (as opposed to the application of clear and objective standards), a land use application process is required (including public notice and opportunity to appeal). As proposed, applications would be subject to the procedures currently used in the Eugene Code for Design Review (planning director approval). Any Design Review request also requires a Neighborhood/Applicant meeting prior to submittal. Level “Level 1” Design Review: Applicable when an applicant requests flexibility to one category of design standards (such as open space). A “Level 1” application would only need to address the criteria specific to that category. (Only one “Level 1” application would be allowed per development, to prevent serial applications.) “Level 2” Design Review: Applicable to all Design Review applications where an applicant requests flexibility to more than one category of design standards, thereby triggering a more comprehensive review of the development. A “Level 2” application would need to address all of the design review criteria. Both would be subject to the same process (see above). Eligibility Certain design standards are proposed to not be eligible for flexibility under a Design Review application, meaning that such design standards would need to be met even if an applicant elected to go through Design Review. These include: Mixed Use and Apartment/Condo Subdistricts: Height, transitions, access and parking location, an entrance onto a primary street, and the special set-back and associated allowed improvements. Single Family Options Subdistrict: Height, building scale, access and parking (including garage standards), transitions and screening, identification with an allowed development type. Criteria Each category of clear and objective design standards (such as open space or active street front) would have corresponding specific and relevant Design Review criteria that are tailored to support the vision as articulated in the South Willamette Concept Plan. PC Agenda - Page 9