HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCAgenda-3/10/04WS City Council
City of Eugene
777 Pearl Street, Room 105
Eugene, Oregon 97401-2793
(541) 682-5010
(541) 682-5414 FAX
(541) 682-5045 TTY
www. ci.eugene.or, us
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
March 10, 2004
Noon CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
McNutt Room, City Hall
777 Pearl Street
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Meeting of March 10, 2004;
His Honor James D. Torrey Presiding.
Councilors
Bonny Bettman, President George Poling, Vice President
David Kelly Scott Meisner
Nancy Nathanson Gary Pap~
Jennifer Solomon Betty Taylor
Noon CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Noon A. ACTION:
An Ordinance Adopting Amended Riverfront Urban Renewal
District Plan Adopted by Ordinance No. 19352 on September
11, 1985
12:15 p.m.* B. WORK SESSION and POSSIBLE ACTION:
An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan
Area General Plan (Metro Plan) To Adopt As Part of Periodic
Review Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions; a New Metro
Plan Chapter Ill-C: Environmental Resources Element; a
New Metro Plan Diagram; Adopting Savings and Severability
Clauses; and Providing an Effective Date
Eugene City Council Agenda: March 10, 2004 L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040310\A040310P.doc
1:00 p.m.e C. ACTION:
Ordinance Adopting Hazardous Substance User Fees for the
Fiscal Year Starting July 1, 2004
*Time approximate
The Eugene City Council welcomes your interest in these agenda items. This meeting location is wheelchair-
accessible. For the hearing impaired, FM assistive-listening devices are available or an interpreter can be provided
with 48 hours' notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hours'
notice. To arrange for these services, contact the receptionist at 682-5010. Telecommunications device for the deaf
assistance is available at 682-5045. All council meetings are telecast live on Metro Television, Comcast channel 21,
and rebroadcast later in the week.
E1 Consejo de la Ciudad de Eugene aprecia su inter6s en estos asuntos de la agenda. E1 sitio de la reuni6n tiene
acceso para sillas de ruedas. Hay accesorios disponibles para personas con afecciones del oido, o se les puede
proveer un interprete avisando con 48 horas de anticipaci6n. Tambi6n se provee el servicio de interpretes en idioma
espa [] ol avisando con 48 horas de anticipaci6n. Para reservar estos servicios llame a la recepcionista al 682-5010.
Hay aparatos de telecomunicaci6n disponibles para ayudar a personas con obstrucciones del oido permanentes al
tel6fono 682-5045. Todas las reumones del consejo estan gravados en vivo en Metro Television, canal 21 de
Comcast, y despues en la semana se pasan de nuevo.
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT THE COUNCIL COORDINATOR AT (541)682-5010.
I~SIT US ON THE WORLD WIDE WEB AT WWW CI. EUGENE. OR. US
Eugene City Council Agenda: March 10, 2004 L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040310\A040310P.doc
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL ~
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Action: An Ordinance Adopting Amended Riverfront Urban Renewal District Plan
Adopted By Ordinance No. 19352 On September 11, 1985
Meeting Date: March 10, 2004 Agenda Item Number: A
Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Richie Weinman
www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5533
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
This is action on an ordinance to amend the Riverfront Research Park Urban Renewal Plan.
BACKGROUND
On February 25, 2005, the council reviewed amendments to the Riverfront Research Park Urban
Renewal Plan for final action. After voting to expand the district to include tax lots primarily owned by
the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB), final action was tabled in order to provide options for the
new boundary and return with new ordinance language.
The options will be brought to the City Council meeting. The plan and report was provided for the
February 25th council meeting. It will also be placed in the Council Office.
Council Action History
In January 2003, the council began a multi-step process to implement the Vision for a Greater
Downtown. This included using urban renewal as a financing tool.
On January 29, 2003, and February 12, 2003, a consultant presented options for financing downtown
improvements, including the use of urban renewal districts as a tool.
On February 12, 2003, the council adopted a motion to initiate the processes to amend the 1985
Riverfront Urban Renewal Plan so that it would continue beyond September 11, 2005.
On April 23, 2003, the council reviewed proposed amendments and directed the City Manager to
proceed with the process of amending the Riverfront Research Park Urban Renewal District Plan with
the draft language, in accordance with the proposed time line.
On October 27, 2003, the City Council approved a motion to use Riverfront Urban Renewal funds, if
necessary, to provide needed street infrastructure for the new Federal Courthouse.
On October 29, 2003, the renewal agency board recommended projects and a proposal to expand the
district boundary.
On November 19, 2003, the renewal agency board forwarded the proposed amendments to the
Riverfront Research Park Urban Renewal Plan to other taxing districts, the Planning Commission and
the public for comment.
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040310\S040310A. doc
On February 9, 2004, the council conducted a public hearing on the amendments and received testimony
from twelve people.
On February 25, 2004, the council considered the amendments for final action and voted to expand the
boundary to include EWEB property up to the corner of 4th and High. Final action was tabled in order to
refine the expansion options and rewrite the ordinance language to accommodate the new boundary.
Policy Issues
Improving the viability of downtown has been a community and City Council goal, in some form, for
decades. The existing Downtown Plan includes portions of the Riverfront Renewal District. The
adopted Growth Management Policies, the Vision for Greater Downtown Eugene, and the council' s
2001-2002 Vision and Goals Statement all include policies or strategies to create a more vital
downtown. There is a close relationship between urban renewal goals and these policies. The update of
the Downtown Plan highlights the need for development tools and points to urban renewal as the most
valuable tool option.
Growth Management Policies
Six of the adopted Growth Management polices particularly relate to implementing the downtown
vision:
Policy 2 Encourage in-fill, mixed-use, redevelopment, and higher density development.
Policy 3 Encourage a mix of business and residential uses downtown using incentives and
zoning.
Policy 4 Improve the appearance of buildings and landscapes.
Policy 10 Encourage the creation of transportation-efficient land use patterns and implementation
of nodal development concepts.
Policy 14 Development shall be required to pay the full cost of extending infrastructure and
services, except that the City will examine ways to subsidize the costs of providing
infrastructure or offer other incentives that support higher-density infill, mixed use, and
redevelopment.
Policy 16 Focus efforts to diversify the local economy and provide family-wage jobs principally by
supporting local, and environmentally sensitive businesses. Direct available financial and
regulatory incentives to support these efforts.
Council Goal Action Priority
2002-2003 City Council Vision and Goals Statement
Sustainable Community Development
· Prioritize and implement next steps in Growth Management.
· Promote a variety of additional housing in the downtown core and provide stability to downtown
and neighborhoods adjacent to downtown by preserving existing housing and residential uses.
Financial and/or Resource Considerations
An analysis of the district's revenue projections and potential expenditures is included in the report as
Attachment D.
Other Background Information
The update of the Riverfront Urban Renewal Plan has been treated as a high-profile action and there has
been significant opportunity for public comment. At each of the public information sessions related to
the update of the Downtown Plan, use of Urban Renewal was highlighted as a tool. The most recent
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040310\S040310A. doc
event, "Lookin' Forward at Downtown," drew over 125 people during the December 5, 2003, Artwalk.
In addition to visual displays and handouts, staff encouraged comments. That event was advertised in
both the Register-Guard and Eugene Weekly. On January 2, 2004, a letter was mailed to each of the
taxing districts informing them of the proposed amendments and inviting comment. The letter included
a copy of the draft plan, a copy that showed proposed changes, and the Riverfront Urban Renewal
District Report.
Lane County was the only jurisdiction to respond to the notification. City staff attended the Board of
County Commissioners meeting on February 4, 2004. The commissioners took no action at the time and
referred the issue to their Economic Development Standing Committee. On February 13, that committee
met and sent a letter that is included in Attachment H. Two of the committee's suggestions could be
accommodated with language in Section 600 of the plan. The third is more complicated because it
involves expanding the district to include the block bounded by 5th, 6th, Oak and Pearl.
The Eugene Planning Commission reviewed the proposals on January 12, 2004, and voted to
recommend approval. The draft plan and report were placed on the City's website in January 2004.
Finally, in conformance with ORS 457.120, a notice of the public hearing was mailed to all property
owners in Eugene.
Timing
Adoption was tabled to March 8, 2004. On March 8, the council is likely to reschedule the action to
March 10, 2004.
OPTIONS
Staff will provide a staff recommendation and several other options for amending the boundary while
still staying within the cap of not exceeding an expansion of 20% larger than the original district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending expansion scenario A-1, as provided in the attachments. Staff recommends
approval of an ordinance adopting amended Riverfront Urban Renewal District Plan adopted by
Ordinance No. 19352 on September 11, 1985.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to adopt an ordinance adopting amended Riverfront Urban Renewal District Plan adopted by
Ordinance No. 19352 on September 11, 1985.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Four maps labeled as follows: A-1 (Staff Recommendation), A, B, and C.
These maps show variations of the new boundary plan that was agreed upon previously by the council.
In order to add the EWEB property that the council discussed on February 25, it will be necessary to
remove some property previously discussed for expansion. These four scenarios offer options for
additions and deletions. The City Attorney will be prepared to offer the correct ordinance language
depending on which map scenario is selected.
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040310\S040310A. doc
The proposed plan, report and ordinance were provided for the February 25 City Council meeting, and
are also placed in the Council Office.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Comact: Richie Weinman, Community Developmem Division
Telephone: 682-5533
Staff E-Mail: richie.d.weinman~ci.eugene.or.us
Staff Comact: Sue Cutsogeorge, Finance Division
Telephone: 682-5589
Staff E-Mail: sue.l.cutsogeorge~ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040310\S040310A. doc
Staff Recommendation
PROPOSED EXPANSION:
The Riverfront Urban Renewal D/strict
Taxlots
79
Acres
29.55
Improved Value
33,767,53o
Land Value
~7,~49,5~o
Total Land & Improved Value
5o,917,o4o
Total Assessed Value
4o,o78,67o
Regional Locat~
~ mi
o 1 2
~ ,Feet I~
Proposed Riverfront Urban Renewal Expansion Proposed Taxlot Removal o 260 520 1,o4o 1,56o
, Miles
~ ~ oo.o~o.~ o.~ o.~ o.~ o.~ i~
Downtown Study Boundary Downtown Urban Renewal District Riverfront Urban Renewal District C~ofEugo, e
P/ann/ng and Deve/opment ~J
March 1, 2004 ~
PROPOSED EWEB EXPANSI'ON
The Riverfront Urban Renewal D/strict
Taxlots
'70
Acres
29.29
Improved Value
33,604,680
Land Value
26,969,279
Total Land & Improved Value
50,573,959
Total Assessed Value
39,789,698
Regional Locat~
Proposed Riverfront Urban Renewal Expansion Proposed Taxlot Removal o ,so soo ,,ooo ~,5oo ,
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0,5
Downtown Study Boundary ~ Downtown Urban Renewal District ~ Riverfront Urban Renewal District Oty of Eugene
P/ann/ag and Development
February
PROPOSED EWEB EXPANSTON:
The Riverfront Urban Renewal D/strict
Taxlots
73
Acres
29.38
Improved Value
34,3W, 86o
Land Value
17,oz3,5o8
Total Land & Improved Value
51,33z,368
Total Assessed Value
40,574,083
Regional Locator
N
·
Proposed Riverfront Urban Renewal Expansion Proposed Taxlot Removal o 2so soo ,,ooo ~,soo
, Miles
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Downtown Study Boundary ~ Downtown Urban Renewal District ~ Riverfront Urban Renewal District Otyofe,,g~n~l~l~
Planning and Development
February 27, 2004 ~
C
PROPOSED EWEB XPANSI' ,'
The Riverfront Urban Renewal D/strict
Taxlots
70
Acres
29.43
Improved Value
33,728,35o
Land Value
18,o67,662
Total Land & Improved Value
53,276,542
Total Assessed Value
4o,836446
Regional Locator
N
Proposed Riverfront Urban Renewal Expansion ~ Proposed Taxlot Removal o 262.5 525 1,o5o 1,575 '
, Miles
o o.o$ o.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 o.$
Downtown Study Boundary ~ Downtown Urban Renewal District ~ Riverfront Urban Renewal District c~oreuae, e
P/aaa/aa and Development
Hatch 1, 2004
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Work Session and Possible Action: An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to Adopt as Part of
Periodic Review Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions; a New Metro Plan Chapter
III-C: Environmental Resources Element; a New Metro Plan Diagram; Adopting
Savings and Severability Clauses; and Providing an Effective Date
Meeting Date: March 10, 2004 Agenda Item Number: B
Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Kurt Yeiter
www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-8379
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
This meeting is the first work session on the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro
Plan) and Metro Plan text and diagram amendments following the joint public hearing held on February
10, 2004. The attached memorandum from the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) provides
background, public testimony, and responses to testimony received during the public testimony and
open record. The proposed amendments that are part of the metropolitan area's periodic review tasks
include the following:
1. Metro Plan Text Housekeeping Revisions;
2. An updated Metro Plan; and
3. Revised Metro Plan Chapter III-C: Environmental Resources Element.
BACKGROUND
These amendments will conclude the local requirements on several significant state-mandated Periodic
Review tasks. A binder containing the record prior to the council' s public hearing is in the Council
Office. Minutes of the Planning Commission deliberation on this matter are included in that binder.
Council Action History
The City Council approved the periodic review work program in 1995. A public hearing was held on
February 10, 2004. These proposed actions are consistent with that work program.
Policy Issues
Most of the proposed amendments are 'housekeeping' in nature and have little policy implication. The
amendments to Metro Plan Chapter III-C, pertaining to natural resource protection, are more
substantive. Specific issues are discussed in the attached LCOG memorandum.
Council Goal Action Priority
Updating the Metro Plan through periodic review is consistent with all City Council goals, but is
especially pertinent to the following goal:
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040310\S040310B.doc
Sustainable Community Development
A community that retains a high quafity of life anda healthy economy, effectively finks landuse and
transportation planning, and successfully manages growth and change in the urban environment.
Financial and/or Resource Considerations
None.
Other Background Information
Please see attached memorandum from LCOG.
Timing
The City of Springfield will consider these amendments on March 15, 2004, and the County Board of
Commissioners on March 17, 2004.
OPTIONS
Options are limited because the same amendments must be approved by Springfield and Lane County.
Generally, staff discourages changes that are not within the minor "housekeeping" intent of the package
of amendments (outside of Chapter III-C, Natural Resources).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendations are contained in the attached LCOG memorandum.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to adopt an ordinance amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro
Plan) to adopt as part of periodic review Metro Plan Housekeeping revisions; a new Metro Plan Chapter
III-C: Environmental Resources Element; a New Metro Plan Diagram; adopting savings and
severability clauses; and providing an effective date.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Proposed Ordinance
B. Memorandum from Lane Council of Governments, dated March 1, 2004
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Kurt Yeiter, Principal Planner
Telephone: 682-8379
Staff E-Mail: kurt.m.yeiter~ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040310\S040310B.doc
Section 3. The Metro Plan Diagram is removed, superseded and replaced by the Metro
Plan Diagram, as amended and set forth in Exhibit C attached and incorporated herein, which is
hereby adopted as an amendment to the Metro Plan.
Section 4. Although not a part of this Ordinance, the City Council adopts the Legislative
Findings set forth in the attached Exhibit D.
Section 5. The prior designations repealed by this Ordinance shall remain in full force
and effect to authorize prosecution of persons in violation thereof prior to the effective date of
this Ordinance.
Section 6. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof.
Section 7. Notwithstanding the effective date of Ordinances as provided in the Eugene
Charter of 2002, this Ordinance shall not become effective until the City of Springfield and Lane
County have adopted ordinances containing concurring provisions to those adopted herein.
Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this
day of ., 2004 ~ day of ,2004
City Recorder Mayor
Ordinance - 2
L:\CMO\CC Coord - CMO\OrdinancesXMetro housekeeping040114.DOC
City Council Agenda page 302
ATTACHMENT B
Lane Council of Governments
99 East Broadway, Suite 400, Eugene, Oregon 97401-3111 (541) 682-4283 Fax: (541) 682-4099 7'7~: (541) 682-4567
March 1, 2004
TO: Eugene Mayor and City Council
Springfield Mayor and City Council
Lane County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Metropolitan Periodic Review Coordination Team
SUBJECT: Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan Periodic Review Text and Diagram Amendments
ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the Ordinance for Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan Periodic Review Text and Diagram
Amendments in Exhibits A, B, and C, as amended through the amendments presented in the
"Staff Recommendations" section on page 2 of these staff notes.
BRIEFING STATEMENT:
The Eugene and Springfield City Councils and the Lane County Board of Commissioners held a
joint work session and public hearing on February 10, 2004 on the draft Eugene-Springfield
Metro Plan Periodic Review Text and Diagram Amendments. The Metro Plan amendments were
recommended for adoption to the elected officials by the planning commissions of the three
jurisdictions.
This memo responds to questions and issues raised by elected officials and the public at the joint
work session and public heating. In addition, specific amendments to Exhibits A, Metro Plan
Housekeeping Revisions, Exhibit B, Metro Plan Chapter m-c: Environmental Resources
Element, and Exhibit C, Metro Plan Diagram, are proposed. These additional changes are found
in the "Staff Recommendations" section beginning on page 2 of this memo.
Attachments to these staff notes are the following supporting materials and testimony: · Exhibit A: Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions Replacement Pages, March 10, 2004
· Exhibit B: Metro Plan Chapter 11I-C. Environmental Resources Element
· Exhibit C: Metro Plan Diagram, March 2, 2004
(continued .... )
Melxo Plan Periodic Review Text and Diagram Amendments Staff Notes Page 1 of 28
City Council Agenda page 303
· Attachment A: February 10, 2004 Minutes of the Joint Work Session and Public
Hearing of the Eugene and Springfield City Councils and Lane
County Board of Commissioners
· Attachment B: Testimony and additional information submitted for the February
10, 2004 public hearing record
· Attachment C: Minutes of elected officials' meetings providing direction to
remove urban reserves
· Attachment D: Section IV: Summary of the Residential Land Supply and Demand
Analysis
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the following additional or new amendments to the materials presented at the
February 10, 2004 public hearing in response to materials submitted for the record or to elected
officials' questions and comments at the hearing. No other changes to Exhibits A, B, or C are
recommended.
Exhibit A: Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions
The following changes are reflected in Exhibit A: Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions
Replacement Pages, March 10, 2003, attached:
· Replacement page II-C-6 to fix the typo that inadvertently marked the words "and
electrical" for deletion in policy 917, in response to a question raised at the
hearing.
· Replacement Pages Ill-I- 1 through 111-I-3 to provide additional staff edits to the
Historic Preservation Element to remove or update outdated material.
The Eugene Modernism 1935-1965 historic context statement contains a strategy
that states: "Strategy 19. Revise the Historic Preservation Element in the Metro
Plan to eliminate outdated findings and policies. (High Priority) [Page 16.3]"
Eugene's Historic Review Board identified the need to revise the Historic
Preservation Element because it contains outdated wording for Finding #6, and
Policies #6, #7, and #8.
The purpose of the proposed changes are to remove the specific focus on
identifying and protecting archeological resources and balance protection with all
historic resource types which traditionally include buildings, districts, sites and
objects. Archeological resources are traditionally classified as "sites."
Finding 7 recommends removing the first sentence as it seems unnecessarily
directed at archeological sites. Proposed wording is intended to be inclusive of
historic and archeological sites. Policy 6 points to completing a working paper for
resource management of archeological sites which we do not have funding for.
Metro Plan Periodic Review Text and Diagram Amendments Staff Notes Page 2 of 28
City Council Agenda page 304
We recommend deleting Policy 6. Policy 7 tells local governments to develop a
list of experts to identify and evaluate archeological sites. The Oregon State
Historic Preservation Office already provides this service, removing the onus from
the local jurisdictions. We recommend deleting Policy 7. Policy 8 is specific to
seeking grants for archeology. The suggested change is worded to seek funding
for "historically significant" sites, which would be inclusive of archeology, should
the need arise.
Exhibit B: Metro Plan Chapter III-C: Environmental Resources Element
The following changes are reflected in Exhibit B: Environmental Resources Element,
attached:
· Change the proposed revisions to existing finding 31 (new finding 21 on page 21
of Exhibit B) to reflect updated data. The revised finding would read as follows:
21. The C-il5,-og Eugene M~&!.vn £':.'eet F/eld Airport Noise Exposure
L~Fac: ~.unda~' Analysis, April 2000 ~, was found to be
in compliance with state airport noise standards by the State of Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality :~ T ....... ~ c,Q ~
· Change proposed new policy C.4(o) (page 6 of Exhibit B) to recognize that ORS
215.253 applies to land zoned Exclusive Farm Use and Marginal Lands. The
revised policy would read as follows:
o. Lane County recognizes ORS 215.253 shall apply on land zoned
EFU and Marginal Lands.
Exhibit C: Metro Plan Diagram~ March 2, 2004
The following changes are reflected in Exhibit C: Metro Plan Diagram, attached. The
reasons for these changes are discussed in the next section of this report under the
heading: Exhibit C: Metro Plan Diagram.
· Correct the Urban Growth Boundary on the RLID Metro Plan Diagram so that it
generally follows the 100 year flood plain through RiverRidge Golf Course, and
follows existing tax lot lines at the south end of the subject area and designate the
area outside the UGB EFU;
· Designate the entire Santa Clara Elementary School site as Low Density
Residential (Tax lot #s: 17-04-11-44-00200; 00300; 00400; and 17-04-1141-
09100; 09200; and 09300);
· Designate all of Tax Lot 17-04-02-34-00300 (Irvington Road) as Low Density
Residential; and
· Designate the entire Westmoreland Elementary School site as Medium Density
Residential (Tax lot #s: 17-04-36-33-00201 and 00400).
Metro Plan Periodic Review Text and Diagram Amendments Staff Notes Page 3 of 29
City Council A0enda pa0e 305
RESPONSES TO ELECTED OFFICIAL COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS
AND PUBLIC TESTIMONY:
The following section summarizes the issues raised in the record of the February 10, 2004 Joint
Elected Officials' Public Heating and provides staff responses. For the complete set of
comments, questions, and testimony, please refer to Attachment A: February 10, 2004 Minutes
of the Joint Work Session and Public Heating and Attachment B: Testimony and additional
information submitted for the February 10, 2004 public heating record.
Non-Periodic Review issues and responses are presented first, as these are outside the scope of
this Periodic Review effort. This section is followed by issues and comments specific to Periodic
Review Exhibits A, B, and C.
NON-PERIODIC REVIEW ISSUES:
At the heating, several issues were raised that were unrelated to the Periodic Review work tasks
proposed for adoption as part of this public hearing process. Staff offers the following responses
to these issues.
1. Metro Plan Policies Related to Urban Services and Local Autonomy in Metro
Planning
At the heating, the elected officials directed staff to prepare a Scope of Work to address
these issues and to bring the scope to MPC. Staff has developed a Draft Scope of Work
which will be presented to MPC in the near future.
2. Complete the Willamette River Greenway Study
The original Periodic Review Work Program contained a work task to complete this
study. No Metro Plan policy changes were anticipated from this study. The purpose of
the study was to report on the cumulative impacts to the Greenway of development
permits issued since the Metro Plan was last updated in 1987. Staff began work on the
study but the intensity of the focus has shifted to the adoption of the mandated work tasks
that are the subject of the current adoption process. The study was removed from the
Periodic Review work program because, with the passage of Senate Bill 920, it was no
longer mandated. The study is currently on the local work program and can be
programmed for completion in keeping with local work program priorities.
3. Increase Air Quality Monitoring Stations
The research and analysis needed to draft policy direction related to the number and/or
location of stations is outside the scope of this Periodic Review effort, ff there is interest
on the part of the three elected bodies to pursue this work in the future, the task could be
added to local work programs.
Metro Plan Periodic Review Text and Diagram Amendments Staff Notes Page 4 of 28
City Council Agenda page 306
The Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA) has jurisdiction over most air
quality issues in Lane County. LRAPA has five air quality monitoring sites in the metro
area: Springfield City Hall (particulate matter); Downtown Eugene, Lane Community
College campus (particulate matter and carbon monoxide); Highway 99 and Four Comers
(particulate matter); Sacred Heart Hospital (carbon monoxide); and Amazon Park
(particulate matter and ozone). There also is a site in Saginaw that monitors for ozone.
LRAPA is the appropriate agency to contact about air quality monitoring sites in Lane
County.
4. Change Growth Management Policies in the Metro Plan
The request was made to change policies in the Metro Plan related to growth
management. This work is outside the scope of this Periodic Review effort.
5. Relationship of Metro Plan amendments to recent court case involvine
EPUD and PPL
There is no relationship between the court action and the proposed Metro Plan
amendments. In January 1999, the Emerald Peoples Utility District (EPUD) Board
initiated annexation of the Halsey Territory (utility service area) with the intent to provide
electrical service to the area. Local residential customers approved the annexation.
PacifiCorp dba Pacific Power and Light (PPL) objected to the annexation in Linn County
Court. In October 1999, EPUD instituted eminent domain proceedings against PPL and
filed a condemnation complaint with the Court. During the condemnation proceedings,
the Court upheld the annexation and affirmed EPUD's right to condemn PPL property.
Mediation resulted in the transfer of property from PPL to EPUD for an amount agreed
upon by both parities and approved by Oregon Public Utility Commission in May 2002.
6. Process Issues
Mr. Ritter testified that citizen involvement in this process was insufficient. Please refer
to the materials presented at the February 10, 2004 public hearing for an in-depth
description of the public involvement process used in this process since March, 2003.
Staff conclude that the activities and timelines presented have afforded sufficient
opportunity for participation in this adoption process.
An extension of time for review of the materials was requested by Mr. Kloos, based on
his contention that all of the materials needed for sufficient comment were not included in
the record or were not included in the record in a timely manner. Staff does not
recommend an extension of time for review and does not agree that the availability of
materials needed for review and comment were limited or restricted as claimed.
All of the materials requested by Mr. Kloos, including the impact of the Metro Plan
diagram changes on the buildable lands supply have been in the record and have been
available for reviewing since September or June 2003. Some of the materials he
requested, such as hand written staff notes tracking each Metro Plan Diagram change
Metro Plan Periodic Review Text and Diagram Amendments Staff Notes Page 5 of 28
City Council Agenda page 307
were included in the record as a result of Mr. Kloos request for these materials; but, had
Mr. Kloos not requested them, staff would not have added them to the record because the
changes reflected in those notes were draft and the final changes were reflected in the
tables that were available on line during the Planning Commission process and in hard
copy format since the Planning Commission process commenced in June 2003.
PERIODIC REVIEW ISSUES
EXHIBIT A: METRO PLAN HOUSEKEEPING REVISIONS
1. Population Projections
Issue: The Lane County Homebuilders' Association representative raised the concern
that the changes to the text Exhibit A related to population projections would alter the
conclusions and analysis of residential lands conducted as part of the Metropolitan
Residential Land and Housing Study in 1999. Elected officials requested additional
information about this topic, including how the population figure relates to and/or
incorporates information about economic and employment trends.
Staff Analysis: The edits to the population figures in Exhibit A report a population
figure for the UGB in the year 2015. The figure is not different from previous UGB
figures because the edits proposed to population figures in Exhibit A provide, for thefirst
time, an anticipated 2015 population figure for the metropolitan UGB. The reporting of
these data do not alter in any way the conclusions or analysis performed as part of the
1999 Metropolitan Residential Land and Housing Study. See Attachment D: Excerpt
from Section IV: Summary of the Residential Land Supply and Demand Analysis.
The current Metro Plan provides a projected population range and an anticipated
population projection figure for an area known as the "Metropolitan Study Area." The
methodology used to develop this projection is described in Attachment D: Excerpt from
Section IV: Summary of the Residential Land Supply and Demand Analysis. The housing
demand for 2015 for the UGB was derived from the housing demand in the Metropolitan
Study Area, just as the proposed population figure for the UGB was derived from the
Metropolitan Study Area population projection.
The Metropolitan Study Area contains census tracts that extend far beyond the metro
UGB. This area was used as the start of the population projection methodology because
the U.S. Census Bureau does not report demographic data at the UGB level and
demographic and economic data are used in the projection methodology. In addition, this
larger area serves as the starting point for population projections used in TransPlan. The
reason the population projection for the Metropolitan Study Area was originally put in the
existing Metro Plan was because that was the figure that was produced through a
projection of past trends by LCOG's analyst. The UGB figure now being included in the
Metro Plan for the year 2015 for the UGB was derived from the projected figure of the
larger land area. The reason the Planning Commissions wanted to provide the population
Metro Plan Periodic Review Text and Diagram Amendments Staff Notes Page 6 of 28
City Council Agenda page 308
figure for the UGB is because the UGB, not the Metropolitan Study Area, is the area of
the Metro Plan's planning jurisdiction. The current figure and range for the Metropolitan
Study Area is merely a technical number used in the analysis. It has no relationship to the
population size Eugene and Springfield are required to serve in the year 2015.
How the UGB 2015 population was derive&
The Eugene-Springfield urban growth boundary (UGB) population projections were
derived starting with the 2015 expected housing demand for the Metro Study Area. From
the 2015 expected housing demand for the Metro Study Area, the existing and expected
housing units inside the Metro Study Area and outside the Eugene-Springfield UGB were
subtracted to arrive at the 2015 expected housing demand for the UGB. Vacant housing
units (assumed at 3.5%) were subtracted from 2015 expected housing demand for the
UGB to arrive at total 2015 households in the UGB. The 2015 projected average
household size of 2.27 was then applied to total expected households which resulted in
total 2015 expected population in households. Then the group quarters population
(assumed at 3% of the total population) was added to the total 2015 expected population
in households to arrive at the 2015 total expected UGB population.
Relationship of Population Projection to Employment:
In developing the 2015 Lane County and Metropolitan Study Area population projections,
the civilian labor force was projected for use in the migration component of the model.
The employment projection was forecast independently; although population played a
role in forecasting employment, particularly retail employment. Once both the
employment and population projections were generated, the population to employment
ratio was developed and reviewed for reasonableness.
Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the edits to the population figure in
Exhibit A. The UGB population for the year 2015 is necessary in order to ensure
coordination with public facility planning and coordinated population projections with
other jurisdictions in Lane County.
2. What were the specific reasons for proposing changes to the policies?
Text changes throughout Exhibit A, including some of the policies, were changed for the
following general reasons:
· "Projected service area" is changed to UGB throughout the document because the
concept of a projected service area was replaced with the UGB when the Metro
Plan was adopted in 1982 but the old language was not removed at that time;
· Text edits to improve grammar that do not alter the meaning, e.g. "that" to
"which" and "sanitary sewer" to "wastewater," etc;
Metro Plan Periodic Review Text and Diagram Amendments Staff Notes Page 7 of 28
City Council Agenda pa§e 309
Text edits to reflect the removal of urban reserves;
· Text edits to describe the Metro Plan Diagram (Metro Plan Chapter II-G)
The following list of policies are proposed for specific changes in Exhibit A; the reasons
for the changes are presented in italics below each listed policy or group of policies:
Page II-G-5:
13. Police, fire and emergency medical services may be provided through
extraterritorial extension wa~tith a signed annexation agreement or initiation of a
transition plan: and upon concurrence by the serving jurisdiction._, extrate~to~al
......................... ~ ............... .~ ................ granted.
This change was recommended because it more clearly states the original intent
of the policy and clarifies what was meant by "specific fire and life safety
services."
Page 11-C-7:
22. Cities shall not extend water or ~astewater service outside city
limits to serve a residence or business without first obtaining a valid "t~4t~te-
ma.~,v,~ty" annexation petition, a consent to annex agreement, or when a health
hazard annexation is required.
Triple majority is no longer an option under Oregon law.
25. When conducting metropolitan planning studies, particularly the Pubic Facilities
c,,,~,, consider the orderly
and Services Plan ~
provision and fin~cing of public se~ices ~d the overall impact on population
~d geo~aphical ~owth in the me~opolit~ ~ea. Where approphate, future
planing stu~es should include specific ~ysis of the ~owth impacts suggested
by ~at p~icul~ study for the metropolitan ~ea.
The Alternative Growth Areas Study has already been done. This policy refers to
future action.
26. Based upon direction provided in Policies 3~=, :38, and g-324 of this section, any
development taking place in an urbanizable area er in rural residential
~o.~....~^~ ~ °; ...... .. ~. ~... .............. ~ ~o~. ~ ~ ~. sh~l be desired to the development
st~d~ds of the city which would be responsible for eventuflly provi~ng a
mnimum level of key urb~ se~ices to the mea. Unless the following con~tions
~e met, the mnimum lot size for cmpus indus~al desi~ated ~eas shall be 50
acres and the mnimum lot size for fll other desi~ations shill be 10 acres. Any I
I
Metro Plan Periodic Review Text and Diagram Amendments Staff Notes Page 8 of 28
City Council Agenda pa§e 310
fo!!o',v;mg st,".ndards: Creation of new parcels Jn the urbanizable area wJH comply
with the foHowin~ standards:...
These changes are to clarify how the policy has always been interpreted by the
local governments.
Page 1I-C-8:
27. Any lot under five acres in size to be created in the..,.~-~a _~o.,,,~.~,.,a~o~'-4~'~ ,.;- t~--,,,~J~^~;~" --~"~ I
abo~an urbanizable area will require city county agreement utilizing the
I
following additional standards:
a. The property will be owned by a governmental agency or public utility.
b. A majority of parcels located within 100 feet of the property are smaller
than five acres.
c. No more than three parcels are being created, '.:nle:.~ other-;,';.se agreed. I
The first change is to rid the policy ora policy number reference and restates the
policy to reflect the intent; the other change reflects current practice, e.g., there
is no process for agreeing on the number of parcels.
Page 11-C-9:
The study has been completed. The policy is outdated.
Page III-B-7:
Metro Plan Periodic Review Text and Diagram Amendments Staff Notes Page 9 of 28
City Council Agenda page 311
These policies are out of date.
Page III-D-5:
These policies are more accurately and currently reflected in the following new
finding #8:
8. The following ..... v ........ J ........ L)P-ermits are required by Eugene,
Springfield, and Lane County to implement Statewide Planning Goal 15 within
their respective areas of iurisdiction as defined in Chapter II-D: f-or-any
a. The City of Eugene requires Crreenway Permits for any activity in the
Willamette Greenway involving intensification of use, change in use, or
development.
b. The City of Springfield requires a Discretionary Use Permit for any change
or intensification of use, or construction that has a significant visual
impact in the Willamette Greenway Overlay District, which is combined
with a "Greenwa¥ Setback Line."
c. Lane County requires a Greenway Development Permit for intensification
or change of use or development allowed in applicable zones, includinF
public improvements and including partitions and subdivisions as defined
in LC 13.020 for lands within the boundaries of the Willamette River
Greenwav.
Page llI-G-4:
G.3 Modifications and additions to or deletions from the project lists in the Public
Facilities and Services Plan for water, wastewater, and stormwater public facility
projects or significant changes to project location, from that described in the
Public Facilities and Services Plan planned facilities Maps 1, 2 and 3, requires
Metro Plan Periodic Review Text and Diagram Amendments Staff Notes Page 10 of 28
City Council Agenda page 312
amending the Pubic Facilities and Services Plan and the Metro Plan, except for
the following:
a. Modifications to a public facility project which are minor in nature and do
not significantly impact the project's general description, location, sizing,
capacity, or other general characteristic of the project; or
b. Technical and environmental modifications to a public facility which are
made pursuant to final engineering on a project; or
c. Modifications to a public facility project which are made pursuant to
findings of an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact
Statement conducted under regulations implementing the procedural
provisions of the national Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or any federal
or State of Oregon agency project development regulations consistent with
that act and its regulations; or
d. Public facility projects included in the PFSP to serve land designated
Urban iReserve prior to the removal of the Urban Reserve designation,
which projects shall be removed from the PFSP at the time of the next
Periodic Review of the Metro Plan.:
Section d is added to reflect the action necessary in removing urban reserves.
Page III-H-5:
H.2 Local parks and recreation plans and analyses shall be prepared by each
jurisdiction and coordinated on a metropolitan level. The park standards adopted
bv the applicable city and incorporated into the city's development code shall be
used in local development processes.
This change reflects the current practice of applying park standards.
Page 111-I-2:
Metro Plan Periodic Review Text and Diagram Amendments Staff Notes Page 11 of 28
City Council Agenda page 313
1.8 Local governments shall pursue grants from all available sources to assist with the
identification and evaluation .of arc-l~dog4~d historically significant sites.
Please refer to the section "Staff Recommendations" for the reasons for these
changes to Chapter III-I policies.
Page m-J-4:
This eft,ox sho'..'ld at least:
...................... j .............. F ....... stoa.
Metro Plan Periodic Review Text and Diagram Amendments Staff Notes Page 12 of 28
City Council Agenda page 314
The energy providers in the region met to discuss this policy and decided not to
pursue the work outlined.
Page m-J-6:
This policy is out of date. The study has been completed.
EXHIBIT B: METRO PLAN CHAPTER III-C. ENVIRONMENTAL
RESOURCES ELEMENT
3. Statewide Planning Goal 3: Agricultural Lands
a. Goal 3 Agricultural Lands Policy for UGB Amendments
Issue: Including additional agricultural land identification factors to those
provided in the Goal 3 Rule is inconsistent. Policy C.1.
Staff Analysis: This is an existing policy adopted by the elected officials and
acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. The
local elected officials can include additional factors to those provided in the Goal
3 Rule.
Recommendation: No change to Policy C. 1.
b. Policy to Study Protection for Agricultural Lands
Issue: Policy should be deleted. Policy C.3.
Staff Analysis: This is an existing policy adopted by the elected officials and
acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission that
encourages the jurisdictions to examine ways to protect lands on the urban fringe
and maintain separation from outlying communities.
Metro Plan Periodic Review Text and Diagram Amendments Staff Notes Page 13 of 28
City Council Agenda page 315
Recommendation: No change to Policy C.3.
c. Farm Dwelling Requirements on Smaller Parcels
Issue: State law does not provide a basis for this policy which establishes an
increased burden of proof for applicants to substantiate proposed agricultural
activities in order to obtain a farm dwelling on smaller parcels (down to 20 acres).
Policy C.4.
Staff Analysis: This is an existing policy adopted by the elected officials and
acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission that
authorizes farm dwellings consistent with State law. LC16.212(7) authorizes a
dwelling on smaller parcels (down to 20 acres) if the applicant can demonstrate
that the farm operation or woodlot is not smaller than the average farm in Lane
County producing at least $2500 in annual gross income from the crops, livestock
or forest products to be raised on the farm operation or woodlot. This Lane Code
language is a direct quote of ORS 215.213 (2)(a). Demonstrating that this
requirement can be met for the more specialized commercial agricultural activities
represents an increased burden of proof that is greater than required in other farm
dwelling provisions.
Recommendation: No change to Policy C.4.
d. Exception to Local Ordinance Regulations of Farm Use in the Exclusive
Farm Use and Marginal Lands Zones.
Issue: Inconsistency of Policy C.4.(o) with ORS 215.253. Policy C.4.(o)
Staff Analysis: Lane County adopted provision for Marginal Lands in 1984.
Existing Metro Plan Policies adopted in 1987 inadvertently left out provision for
Marginal Lands. The language in Policy C.4.(o) is inconsistent with ORS
215.253.
Recommendation: Policy C.4.(o) Should be changed to recognize ORS 215.253
applies to land zoned Exclusive Farm Use and Marginal Lands.
4. Statewide Planning Goal 4: Forest Lands
a. Forest Land Definition
Issue: The Goals (Rules and Statutes) do not define "forest", but characterize the
lands that should be considered forest lands. Finding #4.
Staff Analysis: This is an existing finding adopted by the elected officials and
acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission that
describes the basis for identifying forest land utilizing soils and forest cover.
Recommendation: No change to Finding #4.
Metro Plan Periodic Review Text and Diagram Amendments Staff Notes Page 14 of 28
City Council Agenda page 316
b. Relation of Other Resource Values to Timber Harvest Within UGB
Issue: Policy is vague and should be reworded. Policy C.5
Staff Analysis: This is an existing policy adopted by the elected officials and
acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission that
places the value of timber harvest within the UGB lower than other natural
resource values.
Recommendation: No change.
c. Limitation on Regulation of Forest Lands
Issue: Policy C.6 cannot establish levels of importance of uses proposed on
commercial forest lands. Policy C.6
Staff Analysis: This policy is not establishing levels of importance of uses
proposed on commercial forest lands. This policy establishes that the Oregon
Forest Practices Act controls commercial forest uses. The policy states that if the
Metro Plan establishes a greater importance for uses other than commercial forest
uses, Lane County shall protect the other values by applying appropriate
implementation measures, such as a Plan amendment and zone change to remove
the land from a forest designation.
Recommendation: No change.
d. Existing Forest Policy 17. Language Protecting Forest Land Outside UGB
Issue: The language regarding the values of forest land shall not be destroyed or
deteriorated by nonforest uses should not be eliminated.
Staff Analysis: When looked at in the combined context of Finding 5, the
direction for treatment of other values on forest lands in Policy C.6., the
conservation emphasis of Policy C.7.(a) and the Forest Practices Act limitations
of Policy C.7.(d) staff and the joint planning commissions feel existing Forest
Policy 17 is redundant.
Recommendation: No change.
5. Statewide Planning Goal 5: Natural Resources
a. Purpose of the Goal 5 Rule
Issue: The Goal 5 Rule does not require an inventory and evaluation of Goal 5
resources.
Staff Analysis: The Goal 5 Rule spells out the "how to" of complying with Goal
5. State periodic review requirements for the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan
Metro Plan Periodic Review Text and Diagram Amendments Staff Notes Page 15 of 28
City Council Agenda page 317
direct the three local governments to comply with the Goal 5 Rule (OAR 660-023-
000).
The Purposes and Intent section of the Goal 5 Rule (OAR 660-023-000) states:
"This division establishes procedures and criteria for inventorying and evaluating
Goal 5 resources and for developing land use programs to conserve and protect
significant Goal 5 resources. This division explains how local governments apply
Goal 5 when conducting periodic review and when amending acknowledged
comprehensive plans and land use regulations."
Recommendation: No change.
b. Use of Both Standard Process and Safe Harbor Process within One Resource
Category
Issue: Can a local government use both the standard process and the safe harbor
process for one resource category?
Staff Analysis: In July 2003, Eugene staff asked DLCD whether or not a
jurisdiction could apply the standard inventory process and the safe harbor
inventory process to different sites of the same resource type, or to different
portions of the same site. In a July 3, 2003 email response, DLCD staff said that a
local jurisdiction can not only apply both standard and Safe Harbor processes to a
single resource category, it can also split a single site between the two processes.
The DLCD response states, in part, "A city may divide use of the standard and
safe harbor approach for a single resource site when it is determ/ned through the
standard process that there are significantly different on-site characteristics that
would allow a clear distinction among various portions of the site." This question
of whether the Goal 5 rule allows a split approach on methodology within a
resource type may be confused with the applicability requirements of the new
Goal 5 Rule, which require a jurisdiction to use only the old Goal 5 rule or only
the new Goal 5 rule within all sites of a given resource type.
Recommendation: No Change.
c. Use of the Safe Harbor Approach Outside the UGB
Issue: Do not adopt the safe harbor approach proposed for the area outside the
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
Staff Analysis: The elected officials directed staff in the spring of 1997 to
proceed with the Natural Resources Study, with specific direction to apply the
"safe harbor" approach on lands outside the UGB but inside the Metro Plan
boundary. The Goal 5 Rule provides for a safe harbor approach, a streamlined
process that allows local governments to use existing mapped data to inventory
the resource and skip the analysis step, provided they adopt the protection
measures specified in the rule.
Metro Plan Periodic Review Text and Diagram Amendments Staff Notes Page 16 of 28
City Council Agenda page 318
The safe harbor approach was chosen for the area outside the UGB because: the
protection measures provided under the safe harbor approach are reasonably
adequate given the lower level of development and the more intact natural
systems outside the UGB; State zoning and density restrictions already limit
development outside the UGB; the safe harbor approach is more affordable and
fits within funding constraints for the study; and the safe harbor approach is more
clear and objective and less subject to legal challenge.
Recommendation: No change.
d. Text Written "As If" Adoption Already Has Occurred
Issue: The draft Metro Plan findings and policies to implement the Natural
Resources Study (NR Study) in the materials for the February 10, 2004 Joint
Elected Officials Public Hearing refer to the inventory outside the UGB as if it
already has been adopted. This is confusing and inaccurate.
Staff Analysis: Writing the draft text "as if" the items being processed have been
adopted is a standard technique that allows those revieWing the draft to see the
changes as they would appear in final format upon adoption. Finding and policy
language clarify that there are additional Goal 5 requirements that Springfield and
Eugene must meet. Proposed new finding gl 1 (page 14, Exhibit B) indicates that
Springfield and Eugene are required to complete Goal 5 requirements for
wetlands, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat inside the UGB. Proposed new
policy C.9, which revises existing policy 19 (page 14, Exhibit B), directs the cities
to meet the Goal 5 requirements for these three resources for the area inside the
UGB.
Recommendation: No change recommended.
6. Statewide Planning Goal 6: Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality
a. Airport Noise Finding
Issue: Is there an updated reference for airport noise data in existing finding 31
(new finding 21 on page 21 of Exhibit B)?
Staff Analysis: This comment came up during legal review of Exhibit B in
preparation for the February 10, 2004, Joint Elected Officials Public Heating.
Staff requested updated information from Bob Noble, Manager of the Eugene
Airport.
Recommendation: Staff recommends changing the proposed revisions to
existing finding 31 (new finding 21 on page 21 of Exhibit B) to reflect the
updated data. The revised finding would read as follows:
Metro Plan Periodic Review Text and Diagram Amendments Staff Notes Page 17 of 28
City Council Agenda page 319
21 The r,;,., ^~: v:,,o~,~ a~.~- e .... et Field Ai~og Noise Exposure
~ ..... ~ ..... ~-' ly April 2000 ........... ~ n~n was found to be
.... v ........... ~ Ana sis, x, ..... ~ ~,
in compliance with state ~og noise st~d~ds by the State of Oregon
p~ Q lity' t ....... ~n~
De ment of Environmental ua :n ...... j .....
b. Proposed Amendments to Existing Goal 6 Policy #1
Issue: Amend existing Policy 1 (new policy C.25 on page 23 of Exhibit B) as
follows:
"Springfield, Lane County, and Eugene shall consider downstream impacts for
water quality when planning for urbanization, flood control, urban storm runoff,
recreation, an~ water qt:a!/ty and recreational needs in near proximity to ~ the
Willamette and McKenzie Rivers."
Staff Analysis: The proposed changes would limit the consideration of
downstream impacts to only those that affect water quality. The existing policy
language already addresses water quality and is worded to allow broader
consideration of downstream impacts.
Recommendation: No change.
c. Proposed Amendments to Existing Policy 36
Issue: Amend existing Policy 36 (new policy C.29 on page 24 of Exhibit B) as
follows:
"The air, water, and land resource quality of the metropolitan area has not been
assessed since adoption of the Metro Plan in 1982. Prior to the completion of the
next Metro Plan update, the air, water, and land resource quality of the
metropolitan area w;.!! mus~t be assessed."
Staff Analysis: The first sentence of the proposed amendment to existing policy
36 is a finding, and not appropriate language for a policy. A number of studies
have been completed that address air, water, and land resource quality for various
portions of the metro area, although there has not been a systematic metro-wide
assessment. Proposed amendments to existing air quality findings 4, 5, and 6
(new findings 26 and 27 on pages 23 and 24 of Exhibit B) update references to the
status of air quality in the metro area.
The proposed verb change from "will" to "must" would not change the meaning
nor effect of the existing policy.
Recommendation: No change.
Metro Plan Periodic Review Text and Diagram Amendments Staff Notes Page 18 of 28
City Council Agenda page 320
EXHIBIT C: METRO PLAN DIAGRAM
7. Parcel-Specific Plan Diagram and Adequacy of Residential Land Supply
Issue: Elected officials requested information on the magnitude of the interpretations
that would occur under the proposed Metro Plan policy guidance regarding the parcel-
specificity of the Metro Plan Diagram. They also requested information on the negative
impacts of having a diagram that is parcel specific in its entirety. In addition, testimony
was submitted that the land use designations in the Metro Plan Diagram should be
entirely parcel-specific and that no interpretations of the designation of any properties
should be allowed. The following arguments were offered to support this contention:
· Home Builders Association has objected to this as being contrary to Goal 2.
· This would be contrary to state statutes, specifically ORS 197.296 and
contends that there is not a sufficient supply of residential land.
· This is a refusal to use available technolog.
· It is a dumbing down of predictability and certainty in planning.
· It is an accommodation for Eugene (as Lane County and Springfield are ready
to go 100% parcel specific.
· The proposed housekeeping changes would continue the ambiguous,
conflicting relationship between the refinement plans and the Metro Plan.
Staff Analysis: Staff offers the following responses.
· A GIS analysis of the proposed Metro Plan Diagram indicates that about 8,355
parcels, between 10 and 11 percent of the 80,310 parcels in the Metro Plan area,
border a different plan designation and thus potentially could be subject to
interpretation in the revised Metro Plan text and diagram. This is a conservative
estimate because interpretations of the designations of some of these parcels has
already been made through a formal Metro Plan Diagram amendment or zone change
process. In many of these cases, the interpretation will be clear, such as where a
single family residence (Low Density Residential) borders a park (Parks and Open
Space).
· Staff recognizes the following significant problems with a diagram that is entirely
parcel specific inside urban areas at this time:
· All challenges and interpretations to the Metro Plan Diagram will need to be
processed as an amendment to the Metro Plan Diagram, which requires both
Planning Commission and City Council hearings; these are time consuming
and expensive processes and would not be well integrated with other
procedures (e.g., conditional use permit or zone change).
Metro Plan Periodic Review Text and Diagram Amendments Staff Notes Page 19 of 28
City Council Agenda page 321
· Property owners would need to go through a Metro Plan amendment process
to challenge staff interpretation reflected in the diagram for parcels that border
a different plan designation.
· The flexibility to analyze zoning/land use consistency for these parcels would
be removed, potentially requiring Measure 56 notice. Many existing
nonconforming businesses may suffer if they had to amend the Metro Plan to
make their businesses or zoning conform to the land use designation.
· A parcel-specific diagram does not allow the same flexibility that may be
allowed by neighborhood refinement plans.
· A parcel-specific diagram will have to be amended for simple actions, such as
lot line adjustments, which will be expensive and time consuming for the
applicant and cities.
· The applicants and neighborhood organizations will lose flexibility to interpret
land use designations in a manner that best meets the intent of the refinement
plans and needs of the neighborhood.
· Goal 2 Compliance:
The interpretation of the plan designation for parcels that border a different plan
designation would not be contrary to Statewide Planning Goal 2: Land Use Planning.
According to Eugene legal council, Statewide Planning Goal 2 does not require parcel
specificity for a comprehensive plan, nor does ORS Chapter 197, the Oregon
Administrative Rules for DLCD, or relevant case law. Several cases discuss
comprehensive plans and provide insight into the required level of specificity, but
they do not impose a parcel-specific requirement.
Statewide Planning Goal 2 provides an outline of the basic procedures for Oregon's
land use planning program. It states the planning process is to be the basis for all land
use decisions and actions, and ensures an adequate factual base for those decisions
and actions. Goal 2 further requires that:
All land use plans (which include comprehensive plans, as well as single-purpose
plans of cities and counties) shall include identification of issues and problems,
inventories and other factual information for each applicable statewide planning
goal, evaluation of alternative courses of action and ultimate policy choices,
taking into consideration social, economic, energy, and environmental needs. The
required information shall be contained in the plan document or in supporting
documents. The plans shall be the basis for specific implementation
measures. (Emphasis added).
As stated, Goal 2 provides an outline of the planning program requirements and even
though it calls for land use plans, it describes the plans in very general terms. Also,
the statement that "the plans shall be the basis for specific implementation measures"
indicates the plans are not intended to be the most specific component of the land use
planning process, but rather there are other components that provide for more
Metro Plan Periodic Review Text and Diagram Amendments Staff Notes Page 20 of 28
City Council Agenda page 322
specificity, such as zoning ordinances and maps, and other methods for implementing
the plans'provisions. Nothing in the text of Goal 2 appears to require comprehensive
land use plans and their use designation maps be parcel-specific.
ORS chapter 197 supports the conclusion that the comprehensive plan is not intended
to be the most specific land use planning document, but rather a more generalized
document that does not require a parcel-specific map of use designations. In addition,
several cases that discuss comprehensive plans provide support for the proposition
that comprehensive pans are to be general in nature.
It is important to note that current adopted inventories are among the criteria that
guide the interpretations. Staff would provide a recommendation that is based on an
analysis of the criteria stated in the Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions pages II-G-1
and 2 (i.e., Metro Plan designation descriptions, Metro Plan policies, adopted
buildable lands inventory analyses, refinement plans, and local codes) in determining
the appropriate Plan designation of parcels that border more than one Plan designation
within the metropolitan UGB, as follows:
"The Diagram's depiction of land use designations is not intended to invalidate
local zoning or land uses which are not sufficiently intensive or large enough to
be included on the Metro Plan Diagram.
The Plan designation of parcels in the Metro Plan Diagram is parcel-specific in
the following cases:
1. Parcels shown on the Metro Plan Diagram within a clearly identified Plan
designation, i.e., parcels that do not border more than one Plan
designation;
2. Lands outside the UGB within the Metro Plan boundary;
3. Parcels with parcel-specific designations adopted through the citizen-
initiated Plan amendment process;
4. Parcels shown on a parcel-specific refinement plan map that has been
adopted as an amendment to the Metro Plan Diagram.
There is a need for continued evaluation and evolution to a parcel-specific
diagram. The Metro Plan designation descriptions below, Metro Plan policies,
adopted buildable lands inventory analyses, refinement plans, and local codes
provide guidance to local jurisdictions in determining the appropriate Plan
designation of parcels that border more than one Plan designation within the
metropolitan UGB."
These interpretations would occur as part of a process to change the zoning on
specific parcels, and, less frequently, for subdivisions and conditional use permits.
Staff would make findings of Metro Plan consistency for subdivisions and conditional
use permits, as well as zone changes which are approved by the hearings officials. In
Metro Plan Periodic Review Text and Diagram Amendments Staff Notes Page 21 of 28
City Council A§enda page 323
the case of zone changes, adjacent property owners would be provided an opportunity
to comment on the interpretation of the Metro Plan designation as part of these quasi-
judicial heatings. These processes are clearly consistent with Statewide Planning
Goal 2.
Another aspect of the Goal 2 compliance issue raised in the testimony is the concern
that the proposed Metro Plan Diagram in Exhibit C is not reflective of current
adopted land inventories; and, further, that if some parcels on the Diagram are subject
to interpretation in the future, the interpretations that result in a changed designation
will make the Metro Plan Diagram more inconsistent with the inventories. The
statement in the testimony that "there has not been a governing body adoption of the
RLID inventories, and none is proposed here" is inaccurate. All of the land
inventories currently adopted and acknowledged by DLCD are based on GIS data in
RLID. The Diagram presented in Exhibit C is reflective of those inventories except to
the extent that the designations of some parcels are proposed to change as described
in the proposal. During the Planning Commission process, an analysis of the impact
of these changes on the buildable lands supply in each land use category was
conducted and this resulted in the conclusion: "the net effect of the proposed Plan
Diagram changes does not result in a net shortage of buildable land in any of the
categories."
The interpretation of the parcels that border a different plan designation may affect
the inventories in the future. The same is true for all Metro Plan diagram changes
made in the interim between periodic reviews. This is the reason why an analysis of
the cumulative impact of plan designation changes since the last periodic review is
required as part of the Periodic Review process, and was accomplished for this
Periodic Review in 1995.
· Continuing to allow interpretations of plan designations for the parcels specified is
consistent with state law, including ORS 197.296. ORS 197.296 requires there be a
20 year supply of residential land at the time of periodic review or during a legislative
review of the UGB. The 1999 Residential Land and Housing Study was adopted and
acknowledged by DLCD to be in compliance with Statewide Planning Goals and
administrative rules as part of this periodic review process. The DLCD notice for this
· metropolitan region to complete the residential land analysis was dated prior to the
effective date of ORS 197.296 and, at the time that study was conducted, DLCD
determined that the local governments were not required to meet ORS 197.296 during
this periodic review. The 1999 Residential Land and Housing Study determined that
there was a sufficient supply of residential land in all categories until at least the year
2015.
· The local governments are not refusing to use available technology, and, in fact, are
using the GIS technology to its best advantage. The Regional Land Information
Database (RLID) is a database. It is a tool to report, through the generation of maps
from data files, the plan designation that has been entered into that data base. Where
Metro Plan Periodic Review Text and Diagram Amendments Staff Notes Page 22 of 28
City Council Agenda page 324
the plan designation that has been determined through a formal adoption process is
different from the designation in the database, the database must be corrected to
reflect the adopted designation. The example offered in the testimony provides an
excellent demonstration of this point. The map reference used by the applicant was
not the "adopted" designation, but an incorrect data entry in RLID.
The determination of most parceis is clear through a comparison to the adopted
"blob" diagram and staff feels confident that those 90+% of all parcels in the metro
area match the adopted Metro Plan Diagram. Staff cannot be confident about the
edges of designated areas because the blob diagram does not follow tax lot lines. For
this reason, the public process involved in making a case-by-case determination is the
best and most reasonable course of action for those parcels. The alternative would be
for the elected officials of Eugene and Springfield to go through a Metro Plan
Diagram amendment process for each of those parcels where a zone change is
requested. These zone changes are currently processed by hearings officials.
· The proposal for a parcel specific diagram except for parcels that border a different
plan designation provides less certainty for property owners than a diagram that is
parcel-specific in its entirety. However, this certainty will work against property
owners seeking a determination on their designation far more often than it would
work in their favor because, again, a Metro Plan amendment would be required for
every zone change where the owner wants to retain a zone that does not comply with
the Diagram. The proposed level of parcel-specificity also works in favor of adjacent
property owners who can comment on the interpretation of the designation during the
zone change process.
· The proposal is not an accommodation for Eugene. The same responses, above, apply
equally to the City of Springfield. The proposal is an urban issue because the area
designated for urbanization and development is within the UGB, where the two cities
have jurisdiction for planning. For this reason, the area shown on the Metro Plan
diagram outside the UGB is proposed to be parcel-specific.
· The proposal for the Metro Plan Diagram will improve the relationship between
refinement plans and the Metro Plan Diagram. Over 90% of the parcels in the new
diagram will be parcel-specific. Refinement plans will be one of the tools used to
help determine the plan designation for parcels that border a different plan
designation.
Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of the Metro Plan Diagram proposed in
Exhibit C and the text as proposed, which will allow this metro area to evolve
comfortably into a parcel-specific plan diagram.
Metro Plan Periodic Review Text and Diagram Amendments Staff Notes Page 23 of 28
City Council Agenda page 325
8. Urban Reserves
Issue: Testimony submitted at the hearing requested retaining the existing Urban
Reserve designations in the Metro Plan diagram, now proposed for deletion. In addition,
them is continued interest on the part of Eugene planning staff to retain the designation of
Urban Reserve in the north Eugene area. The owner of property in that current Urban
Reserve has discussed the possibility of withdrawing forested hillside and ridgeline
property from the UGB on the south end of town if the flatter land in the urban reserve
with readily available services could be added to the UGB. The owner has offered to
donate to the City an extensive area of land for future parks to make the developable
acreages between the two sites equal. The City of Eugene staff believe this "UGB swap"
could be in the best interests of the Eugene community in the long run, and retention of
the Urban Reserve designation my facilitate this "UGB swap."
Staff Analysis: At the November 29, 2000, Joint Work Session of Eugene and
Springfield City Councils and Lane County Board of Commissioners, elected officials
asked staff to schedule individual work sessions with each elected body to further discuss
the future of urban reserve areas in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. Work
sessions were held with the Eugene City Council on February 21, 2001, with the
Springfield City Council on March 5, 2001, and with the Lane County Board of
Commissioners on March 21, 2001.
The result of the actions taken at these meetings was that the elected officials
unanimously directed staff to proceed to remove urban reserves from the Metro Plan
Diagram (see Attachment C: Minutes of elected officials' meetings providing direction to
remove urban reserves). The decision of the elected officials was based on the analysis
and recommendations contained in the staff report and the report, Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area Urban Reserve Analysis and Alternatives Report, June 2001. This
report is included in the record of the planning commission hearing process for the
amendments subject to this request. The conclusion of that study was that the existing
urban reserves do not meet the criteria in the administrative rule and therefore they should
be removed from the diagram. DLCD has issued a letter stating that the existing urban
reserves must be removed in order to complete this Periodic Review work task.
Recommendation: Staff recommends removing all existing urban reserves from the
Metro Plan diagram in order to be consistent with existing state law. Staff further
recommends that urban reserves be reconsidered through Region 2050, a collaborative
process now underway to develop a Regional Growth Management Strategy for the
Southern Willamette Valley.
9. UGB Location at RiverRidge Golf Course
Issue: Testimony indicated that the location of the Urban Growth Boundary as shown on
the GIS map as it passes through RiverRidge Golf Course (TL 1703070000304) is
incorrect, and has been shown incorrectly since at least 1988. Materials submitted into
Metro Plan Periodic Review Text and Diagram Amendments Staff Notes Page 24 of 28
City Council Agenda page 326
the record indicate that several Lane County land use application documents and City of
Eugene zone change application from 1988 all refer to an area of approximately 33 acres
that were outside the Urban Growth Boundary. The current location of the Urban Growth
Boundary shown on the GIS map leaves substantially less than 33 acres outside the UGB.
Staff Analysis: There is clearly a conflict between the statement that 33 acres of the
property were outside the UGB and the fact that the map shows only about 19 acres
outside the UGB. Either the 33 acre figure is incorrect or the location of the UGB shown
on the GIS map is incorrect. The source of the 33 acre figure referenced in the Lane
County land use application documents is not clear. It is possible that the 33 acre figure
was an error, and that the error was repeated in all subsequent documents associated with
the Jeffries' application for approval to construct a golf course on the site. One map
submitted for the City zone change (file Z 88-6) shows a different UGB location, a
location that roughly follows the 100-year floodway.
Staff conducted a brief GIS analysis of the area in question, and determined that if the
UGB was drawn to follow the 100 year floodway across RiverRidge golf course, there
would be almost exactly 33 acres of the site outside the UGB. Staff then consulted the
1987 Update to the Metropolitan Area General Plan, which contains broad descriptions of
the location of the UGB and the basis for its location. In the location of RiverRidge Golf
Course, the diagram indicates the following were used to determine the location of the
UGB in this general area: protecting agricultural lands, the floodway fringe, protecting
wetlands, protecting sand and gravel resources, and meeting housing goals. The 33 acres
· that lie east of the 100 year floodplain (formerly called the floodway fringe) were, at the
time of the rezoning application to the County, designated for Sand and Gravel. The
former sand and gravel resource area and the location of the floodplain coincide with the
33 acre figure. Written testimony included assessor maps that have a dashed line that
early Metro Diagram cartographers may have incorrectly followed instead of the
floodway line. This information appears to indicate that the 33 acre figure cited in the
1998 documents was correct, and that the location of the UGB shown on the GIS map
was incorrect.
The land in question was not included in the residential buildable lands inventory. The
UGB correction on the GIS map would not adversely affect this inventory.
Recommendation: Staff recommends correcting the Urban Growth Boundary on the
GIS Metro Plan Diagram so that it generally follows the 100 year flood plain through
RiverRidge Golf Course, and following existing tax lot lines at the south end of the
subject area as shown in Exhibit C. The change to the data layer and file is consistent
with the current, adopted text of the Metro Plan and reflects the actual UGB location
adopted as of record.
Metro Plan Periodic Review Text and Diagram Amendments Staff Notes Page 25 of 28
City Council Agenda page 327
10. Designation of 4J Schools: Santa Clara Elementary School
Issue: What is appropriate Land Use Designation of school sites that will no longer be
used for "Government and Education" purposes? School District 4J requests Commercial
designation for the Santa Clara Elementary School.
Staff Analysis: One of the purposes of the Metro Plan diagram update is to have the
diagram better reflect land use designations shown in approved refinement plans. Many
Eugene neighborhood refinement plan designations reflect current use of public
properties, such as schools and fairgrounds, as "Government and Education." When the
refinement plans were prepared (often over 15 years ago), it was not forecast that school
districts may discontinue school activities and sell these properties. The timing of this
Metro Plan diagram update corresponds with District 4J's disposition of two school sites,
Santa Clara and Westmoreland Elementary Schools. It would be efficient if the land use
designation were determined at this time, so as to inform the zone change application, if
possible. On the other hand, more public discourse about the future use of these
properties could be required, at 4J's expense, if the sites were designated Government
and Education and refinement plan amendments required prior to or concurrent with any
zone changes. Amendments to the Metro Plan diagram will not automatically change the
refinement plans, but could inform future interpretations. The written testimony provides
data regarding the interim nature of the "Government and Institutional" designation,
current Metro Plan designations, and zoning of these sites.
The old Metro Plan "blob" diagram shows commercial designation extending along both
sides of River Road, to just north of Hunsaker Lane. The rest of this area is designated
Low Density Residential. The Metro Plan diagram could suggest that some Commercial
is on the Santa Clara School site. Narrow commercial zoning patterns suggest that the
Commercial designation is not so wide as to encompass the entire school property.
The River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan (a non-site specific refinement plan)
appears to designate the entire Santa Clara School site as Education. The plan narrative
recognizes problems created by the strip commercial development patterns along River
Road and encourage buffering between commercial and residential uses. Policies in the
plan discourage linear expansion of the strip commercial development patterns, but allow
expansion "by infilling, redevelopment, or expansion onto contiguous property that does
not front on River Road' (Policy 3.0, page 2-18) and to locate new neighborhood
commercial uses "away from River Road in locations that facilitate the provision of
commercial facilities scaled to a residential area and that allow for dispersal of uses
throughout River Road-Santa Clara" (policy 6.0, page 2.19). Policy 22.0 in the Eugene
Commercial Lands Study (1992, adopted as a refinement of the Metro Plan) states, in
part, "Recognize that the commercial sites designated in the RiverRoad/Santa Clara
Urban Facilities Plan provide adequate commercial supply for the area..." [the Santa
Clara school site is not designated Commercial in the RR/SC Urban Facilities Plan].
Policy 11.0 states, "Promote neighborhood-oriented commercial facilities and community
commercial areas rather than additional major retail centers."
Metro Plan Periodic Review Text and Diagram Amendments Staff Notes Page 26 of 28
City Council Agenda page 328
Current zoning of the school property is a combination of Public Land and Neighborhood
Commercial. Neighborhood Commercial is not a Metro land use designation and may be
compatible with Residential land use designations (determined at time of zone change).
This site is located within potential Nodal Development Area 5C as identified in
TransPlan.
Based on this evidence, staff feels that designation of the entire school property as
Commercial could be contrary to adopted policies. Some Neighborhood Commercial
development, as current zoning allows, is compatible. Commercial land use designation
is not necessary to retain the Neighborhood Commercial zoning.
Recommendation: Have the Metro Plan Land Use Diagram designate the entire Santa
Clara Elementary School site as Low Density Residential (Tax lot #s: 17-04-11-44-
00200; 00300; 00400; and 17-04-11-41-09100; 09200; and 09300). This designation
should not be interpreted to prejudice future land use amendments to support nodal
development.
11. Designation of 4J Schools: Westmoreland Elementary
Issue: What is appropriate Land Use Designation of school sites that will no longer be
used for "Government and Education" purposes? School District 4J requests Medium
Density Residential designation for the Westmoreland Elementary School site.
Staff Analysis: See introductory remarks in number 10, above.
The old Metro Plan "blob" diagram depicts the Westmoreland School site as "Medium
Density Residential." The school district's pending zone change application would have
the site be R-2, Medium Density Residential, which is consistent with that land use
designation. A public hearing was held on January 28, 2004, at which time there was
some testimony suggesting that part of the site should be designated for Parks and Open
Space. The Heatings Official's decision has not been issued yet.
Recommendation: Have the Metro Plan land Use Diagram designate the entire
Westmoreland Elementary School site as Medium Density Residential (Tax lot #s: 17-04-
36-33-00201 and 00400).
12. Commercial or Residential on Tax lot 17-04-02-34-00300 (Irvington
Road)
Issue: A pending zone change application on this Irvington Road property brought to
light that a refinement plan interpretation reflected in the draft Metro Plan diagram
overstated the amount of commercial.
Metro Plan Periodic Review Text and Diagram Amendments Staff Notes Page 27 of 28
City Council Agenda page 329
Staff Analysis: As stated in the written testimony, analysis suggests that the commercial
area in the draft Metro Plan land use diagram was too large, and that the subject parcel
should be all Low Density Residential. This conclusion is consistent with the property
owner's pending zone change application.
Recommendation: Amend the diagram to designate all of Tax Lot 17-04-02-34-00300
as Low Density Residential.
Metro Plan Periodic Review Text and Diagram Amendments Staff Notes Page 28 of 28
City Council Agenda page 330
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Action: An Ordinance Adopting Hazardous Substance User Fees for
the Fiscal Year Commencing July 1, 2004
Meeting Date: March 10, 2004 Agenda Item Number: C
Department: Fire and Emergency Medical Services Staff Contact: Glen Potter
www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-7118
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
This is an action item to adopt an ordinance adopting hazardous substance user fees for the fiscal year
commencing July 1, 2004
BACKGROUND
Council Action History
Since 1998 (the first year such fees were assessed), the council has annually approved the fees
recommended by the Toxics Board, with the exception of 2003, when the council amended the
recommendation by directing that staff support for the program be reduced from 1.0 FTE to .75 FTE.
(Initial program support, through FY99, was 1.5 FTE.) Because state law prohibits assessing these fees
on the basis of quantities of hazardous substances reported, the Toxics Board has always recommended
fees based on the number of persons (converted to FTE) employed by each fee-paying business. The fee
assessed in 2003 was $13.92 per FTE.
The council held a public hearing on the proposed 2004 fees on February 23 of this year. Draft minutes
of the hearing are attached, along with written comments that were provided either at the hearing or via
e-mail. By City Council action, the record on this matter remained open through March 1.
Policy Issues
None noted. The policy of assessing fees on the basis of FTE is well-established, and is based on a
desire by the Toxics Board to assess fees based (at least roughly) on ability to pay, and on the board's
recognition that there is some correlation between companies' employment levels and their quantities of
hazardous substance use. That policy is again applied in the current recommendation, to the extent
possible given the $2,000 fee cap imposed by the Oregon Legislature.
Council Goals
The Toxics Right-to-Know Program was established by citizen initiative in 1996 as an amendment to
the Eugene City Charter. The program makes detailed information available to the public regarding the
inputs and outputs of hazardous substances at certain local manufacturing facilities.
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040310\S040310C.doc
As such, the program supports, to its own extent, several current City Council goals:
-- Safe Community
-- Healthy Natural and Built Environment
-- Effective, Accountable Municipal Government (because the City of Eugene reports
voluntarily under this program)
Financial and/or Resource Considerations
The proposed program budget for FY05 is $97,724. This is based on the authorized FY04 budget plus
an inflation factor of three percent for wages and fringe benefits, an inflation factor of one percent for
materials and supplies, and an increase in the City Attorney Fees line item. (For the current fiscal year,
$2,000 was budgeted for legal fees. Actual expenditures incurred through January 31 were $4,200.)
At the beginning of each calendar year, staff polls all participating businesses to ascertain their FTE
levels for the preceding calendar year, and fees are calculated based on the information received. The
calculation is somewhat different this year because of the $2,000 fee cap.
Without the cap, the recommendation would be $14.35/FTE ($97,724 divided by total reported FTE of
6,810). With the cap, it was necessary to arrive at a cutoff point (above which companies would pay
$2,000, and below which they would pay an amount per FTE) such that the required revenue would be
generated, and such that a business would not be unduly penalized for being immediately above the
cutoff point. This is possible with accounting software. In the current recommendation, the cutoff point
is (technically, just above) 63 FTE. Up to that point, the fee would be $31.65/FTE. At 63 FTE, the fee
would be $1,994 (still $31.65/FTE). At 64 FTE, the fee would be the maximum of $2,000, or
$31.25/FTE. The per-FTE costs would then continue to drop as company size rises. The largest
participating company reported 2003 FTE of 1,207, and so would be assessed $1.66/FTE, or $2,000.
The Toxics Board was unanimous in approving this calculation methodology for this year.
Of the 73 participating companies, 44 reported 63 or fewer FTE. Of the remaining 29 (and of the entire
73), only 11 (those with 145 FTE or above) would see their fees actually decrease from 2003 under this
proposal. This is because companies with FTE levels between 64 and 144 (of which there are 18) paid
less than $2,000 in 2003, but would pay the maximum of $2,000 (though at a lesser per-FTE rate than
$31.65) this year. In other words, the fee cap is bad news for 44 companies, mixed (but still bad) news
for 18, and good news for 11.
A few examples:
Proposed
FTE 2003 fee $/FTE 2004 fee $/FTE
15 $ 208.80 $13.92 $ 474.75 $31.65
50 696.00 13.92 1,582.50 31.65
100 1,392.00 13.92 2,000.00 20.00
250 3,480.00 13.92 2,000.00 8.00
1,000 13,920.00 13.92 2,000.00 2.00
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040310\S040310C.doc
Other Background Information
Eugene City Charter Section 54, Article VII, requires hazardous substance users in Eugene to pay fees
as necessary to support the operations of the Toxics Right-to-Know Program, which was established in
1996 by voter adoption of that Charter section. For purposes of these fees, a definition of"hazardous
substance user" is provided in Eugene City Code Section 3.692.
Subsection B of Article VII provides that the fee amounts shall be recommended annually by the Toxics
Board and approved and amended as necessary by the City Council. Subsection C provides that fees
shall be paid by May 1 of each calendar year.
In past years, the council has authorized fees by resolution. However, under new state law, a City
ordinance is now required. The same body of state law provides, effective this year, that no facility shall
be assessed local hazardous substance fees of more than $2,000 in any calendar year. As explained
earlier, this provision significantly influenced the recommendation now before the council, when
compared to past years' fees.
The proposed ordinance attached to this summary reflects the Toxics Board's unanimous
recommendation of a fee of $31.65 per FTE for each participating business, up to a maximum of $2,000.
This will generate revenue estimated at $97,724, sufficient to operate the program at the current level for
the upcoming fiscal year.
Timing
To comply with the Charter requirement that fees be paid by May 1, and to allow companies sufficient
processing time, staff would like to mail invoices on or about April 1, 2004, and so City Council
authorization would be needed prior to that date.
OPTIONS
1. Adopt the ordinance.
2. Amend and adopt the ordinance.
3. Decline to adopt the ordinance.
4. Re-refer the issue to the Toxics Board.
5. Provide further direction.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Toxics Board and staff recommend Option 1.
S[IGGESTED MOTION
Move to adopt an ordinance adopting hazardous substance user fees for the fiscal year commencing
July 1, 2004.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Recommended ordinance adopting hazardous substance user fees for the fiscal year commencing
July 1, 2004
B. Record of public input
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040310\S040310C.doc
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Glen Potter
Telephone: 682-7118
Staff E-Mail: glen. d. potter~ci, eugene, or. us
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040310\S040310C.doc
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE USER
FEES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1, 2004.
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that:
A. Pursuant to Article VII of Amendment IV to the Eugene Charter of 197(5
(the "Amendment"), the City Council has previously adopted Resolution No. 4558
establishing fees to be paid by hazardous substance users within the City for the fiscal
year commencing July 1, 1998; Resolution No. 4587 establishing fees to be paid by
hazardous substance users within the City for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1999;
Resolution No. 4634 establishing fees to be paid by hazardous substance users within
the City for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2000; Resolution No. 4667 establishing
fees to be paid by hazardous substance users within the City for the fiscal year
commencing July 1, 2001; Resolution No. 4711 establishing fees to be paid by
hazardous substance users within the City for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2002;
and Resolution No. 4751 establishing fees to be paid by hazardous substance users for
the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2003.
B. In accordance with other requirements of the Amendment, the City
Council, by ordinance, has adopted the City's Hazardous Substance Tracking
Instructions, which provide guidance to hazardous substance users in completing and
submitting the reports required by the Amendment.
C. Pursuant to amended ORS 453.370(2)(a), the City must adopt the
hazardous substance user fee schedule via ordinance after notice and public hearing.
Ordinance - 1
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040310\S040310C-atlA. doc
The City published and posted notice of the public hearing to be held on February 23,
2004, concerning the proposed ordinance adopting hazardous substance user fees, and
such hearing was held before the Eugene City Council on that date.
D. Pursuant to amended ORS 453.370(2)(b), the City cannot adopt a fee
schedule that imposes a fee of more than $2,000 for any single facility in any calendar
year.
E. The Toxics Board has recommended a fee of $31.65 per FTE, not to
exceed $2,000 for any single facility for the 2004 calendar year, in order to cover the
expenses of the program.
THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A fee of $31.65 per FTE, not to exceed $2,000 for any single facility
for the 2004 calendar year, is hereby imposed as the fee to be paid by hazardous
substance users within the City of Eugene. The fee shall be due and payable by May 1,
2004.
Section 2. As used in this Ordinance, the terms "FTE," and "hazardous
substance users" have the meanings ascribed to them in Section 3.692 of the Eugene
Code, 1971.
Section 3. The fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall be used for the
purpose of operating the Toxics Right-to-Know Program created by Amendment IV to
the Eugene Charter of 1976 and implemented by subsequent ordinances of the City.
Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this
__ day of ,2004. __ day of ., 2004.
City Recorder Mayor
Ordinance - 2
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040310\S040310C-attA. doc
ATTACHMENT B
DRAFT EXERPT
MINUTES
Eugene City Council
Regular Meeting
Council Chamber--City Hall
February 23, 2004
7:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gary Papd, Nancy Nathanson, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Bonny
Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Scott Meisner
His Honor, Mayor Torrey, called the meeting to order.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Adopting Hazardous Substance User Fees for the
Fiscal Year Commencing July 1, 2004.
Mr. Taylor said Glen Potter, Fire and Emergency Medical Services staff to the Toxics Board, would
outline the recommendations regarding the fees that were subject to the hearing.
Mr. Potter stated that the Toxics Board was, for the first time, forced by legislative action to
implement a State fee cap of $2,000 per year per facility for the fees. He reiterated that, as
explained in the council packet, that the cap inevitably had the effect of substantially reducing fees
for larger employees and substantially increasing fees for smaller employees in order to maintain
the stability of the program. He explained that this was the foundation for the recommendation that
the fees be increased to $31.65 per full time equivalent (FTE) per year.
Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing.
John Jordan-Cascade, 1575 Larkspur Loop, stated that he had resided in the City of Eugene since
1978. He alleged that the City had let narrow business interests "run roughshod over the public
interests." He stressed that the Toxics Right to Know Law was passed in 1996 by a majority of the
voters despite the best attempts by business interests to dissuade them. He affirmed the public's
fundamental right to know the identity and amounts of toxic chemicals released into workplaces,
MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2004 Page 1
Regular Meeting
air, water, soil, and environment of the community as mandated by this law, calling the law
innovative and unique. He asserted the law had been successful in serving the interests of
Eugenians and that it was the first and best Right-To-Know law in the nation. He opposed holding
another ballot on the law, calling it an unnecessary financial burden on the public.
Mr. Jordan-Cascade alleged that Councilors Nathanson and Meisner had received a rating often
percent on the Oregon League of Conservation Voters scorecard for their votes. He exhorted the
council to let the record show by their votes whether they were on the side of public health.
Ruth Wilday, 3120 Coraly Avenue, noted that she resided in a heavily industrialized area. She
lauded the Toxics Right-To-Know Website, calling it an ~amazing" resource. She felt the Toxics
Right-To-Know law was a wonderful law. She recommended basing fees on a straight per capita or
per gallon amount. She opined there was no way to realistically assess the damage to humans
caused by a spill. She voiced her support for the continued use of fees paid by businesses to
support the program.
Ms. Wilday registered her opposition to the State cap on fees to larger businesses.
Jim Gibson, 3350 South Lambert, said he was a local business man and participant in the program.
He called the program flawed in that it discriminated in that it only charged businesses with ten or
more employees and a Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code of 2,000 to 3,000. He asserted
that many businesses took raw materials and transformed them into something else, but did not
have the SIC rating, and that many businesses used disproportionately large amounts of chemicals,
but did not have ten or more employees.
Mr. Gibson stressed that his business manufactured stormwater pollution protection devices that
were installed in the catch basins in parking lots. He related that his business was on the cutting
edge of filtration devices and that he worked with both the Cities of Eugene and Springfield and
others. He commented that he was environmentally concerned. He noted that businesses pay a
hazardous substance fee and were governed by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He felt this level of regulation to be adequate.
He opined that the Toxics Right-To-Know fee was a '~double whammy."
MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2004 Page 2
Regular Meeting
Bob Cassidy, 1401 East 27th Avenue, commented that he was intrigued with the idea of having
more people involved in the program. He felt the concept of requiring businesses with ten or more
employees to report was likely an arbitrary decision made by a committee. He thought it should be
expanded to encompass smaller businesses and there would be more reporting and possibly more
violations. He noted that firefighters were killed in the process of putting out a fire in Coos Bay
during 2003 and stressed the importance of knowing what sorts of toxic substances were in a
building. He asserted a lack of such knowledge could lead to greater liability on the part of the
City.
Jan Spencer, 212 Benjamin Street, averred the discussion should be on how to eliminate pollution
in the first place. He was troubled by all of the pollution in the area, calling it ~fairly typical of
industry" nation-wide. He felt pollution exacted a public health cost that affected the entire society
and to leave businesses unaccountable was to subsidize business. He called it shameful that so
much of the nation's economy was devoted to %leaning up the mess" left by industry.
Mr. Spencer commented that he had collected over 500 signatures to put the Toxics Right-To-
Know on the ballot. He opined returning it to the ballot would be a betrayal of the voters.
Terry Connolly, 1401 Willamette Street, conveyed the opposition of the Chamber of Commerce to
the fees recommended to run the Toxics Right-To-Know program in 2004. He urged the City
Council not to approve them. He said the continued opposition was based on usage of a quantity of
hazardous substance used funding formula, which he alleged the State law did not allow. He felt
the program was taking liberties with the City Charter by charging fees to approximately 30
companies that were never part of the program and are not part of the reporting program. He
averred the $2,000 cap was not a bargain to larger employers and called the fee changes a %hift
from one funding inequity to another." He asserted that the original intention in the program were
no longer possible. He commented that, whether the council supported the program or opposed the
program, the council should consider how long it intended to sustain the program by fees that were
allegedly not authorized by voters and by a formula that allegedly was not authorized by State law.
He asked the council to consider if a fee increase of 125 percent would produce 125 percent
increase in benefit.
Mary O' Brien, 3525 Gilham Road, said there were two key elements of the Toxics Right-To-
Know law that Eugene citizens placed in the City's charter:
MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2004 Page 3
Regular Meeting
1) Hazardous substance using businesses must report their toxics releases;
2) These same businesses must cover their costs for reporting their toxics releases.
She asserted that throughout the law's seven-year life nothing significant had changed in the first
element. She stated that the second element had only been altered. She alleged that it had been
altered at the behest of a few Eugene businesses in State Court and in the Legislature. She related
that, in the 1980s, the State Fire Marshall had ~gotten the Legislature to prevent quantity-based fees
on local hazardous substance programs that duplicated the State Fire Marshall's program." She
opined the court, using %izarre logic," had applied this law to the Toxics Right-To-Know law. She
averred the State Fire Marshall's law had no relationship to the local City Charter. She listed points
in the State law, as outlined in a chart submitted to the council, for comparison purposes. She
stressed the law was intended to allow firefighters to know what a business was putting in barrels
on site.
Ms. O' Brien related that the fee cap, which she asserted was the result of lobbying by Eugene area
businesses, shifted the burden of fees from large businesses to small businesses. She explained that
the resulting fee for Hynix Corporation was $1.62 per FTE while a small business paid almost $32
per FTE.
Jennifer Gleason, 2845 Kincaid Street, spoke as a member of the Toxics Board. She urged the
council to accept the recommended fee schedule and adopt one of the measures Right-To-Know
advocates were suggesting to rectify the situation. She stressed that the Charter clearly stated that
the program must be self-supporting via fees paid by participating businesses. She regretted that
the Toxics Board could not find a way to avoid a recommendation to increase fees. She said that,
when originally drafted, the law created a system under which the burden to businesses would be
minimal. She stated that a minority of businesses changed the way the law works so that the burden
had been shifted to small businesses. She alleged this same minority came before the council ~at
every opportunity to complain about how unfair this law is." She shared her frustration at having to
continually come before the council to defend citizens' right to know what was in their
environment. She stressed that the Toxics Board was appointed by the City and had struggled to
find a fair solution. She felt the proposal before the council represented the best solution possible
given the newly-mandated constraints. Noting that no one was happy with the recommendation,
she commented that this was the best indication that it was the result of serious compromise. She
submitted further testimony in writing.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2004 Page 4
Regular Meeting
Steve Johnson, 1825 Longview Drive, stated that he was a member of the Toxics Board. He urged
adoption of the unanimously approved recommendation before the council. He commented that,
when moving forward with the law, it was not thought that it would solve all problems with toxins
in Eugene. He felt the time had come to make a proposal for a way to improve the law. He
indicated, with a chart, that expanding the businesses required to report to those with less than ten
employees, noting that businesses such as dry cleaning and auto body paint shops put toxic
materials into the environment. He asserted this would add to the base of people to support the
program. He added that the program had reached a point wherein the facilitation of reporting had
greatly improved.
Bob O' Brien, 3525 Gilham Road, made the following points:
1) Many people worked a great deal to gather the signatures needed to put the Toxics Right-
To-Know law on the ballot. He noted he had participated in the petition drive. The law was
very important to a lot of people.
2) He urged the council to keep the fees the way they are in the proposal. He commented
that the board was a balanced body and had come forth with a good proposal.
3) He thanked the City Council for upholding the City Charter. He thanked Mayor Torrey
for upholding the law supported by the citizens of Eugene. He noted the City had sent its
lobbyist to Salem to lobby on behalf of the law.
In closing, he urged the council to support the recommendation for the increase in hazardous
substance user fees for 2004.
David Monk, 3720 Emerald Street, speaking as the third citizen representative on the Toxics
Board, stressed that the ordinance had been passed by a 55 percent majority. He averred that the
voters clearly understood that ~ignorance was toxic." He opined that the funding challenges faced
by the Toxics Right-To-Know law were a direct result of business owners' opposition to
democracy. He commented that the city councilors represented people impacted by industry. He
likened the decision before the council as that of being for the ~protection the health of our
youngest and most vulnerable citizens" or for the industry's ~right to pollute." He asked the
council to adopt the recommendation for the fee structure brought before it by the Toxics Board,
reiterating that it had been forwarded by unanimous vote.
Hope Marston, PO Box 51434, 3110 University Street, proclaimed her pride in living in a
community in which the citizens had passed the Toxics Right-To-Know law. She lauded the
MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2004 Page 5
Regular Meeting
community's concern for the environment. She felt the law was about community standards and
about the price that business paid for the potential harm it caused the community. She said it was
up to the people on the City Council to take a leadership role and make sure the City Charter was
protected. She urged the council to uphold the recommendation of the Toxics Board and keep the
fee structure and spread the burden among the business community. She reiterated that the public
had a right to know.
Elizabeth Horvath, 1158 Mill Street, stated that she was a student of the University of Oregon and
an intern with the Oregon Toxics Alliance. She read testimony from Lynn Tessenden (no idea of
spelling) into the record. She related Ms. Tessenden's assertion that the Toxics Right-To-Know
database was very facile to work with and that it contained a valuable amount of relevant and
valuable information for the citizens of Eugene including what chemicals were being released,
whether into the air, surface water, or the City's water treatment facility, what is known about
health effects of the chemicals, and who was releasing them, where they were located and which
industries were increasing and which were decreasing the chemicals released into the environment.
She conveyed Ms. Tessenden's support for the ordinance.
Mayor Torrey called for a motion to extend time.
Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, to extend the meeting time
by nine minutes. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
Sandra Bishop, 591 West l0th Avenue, spoke in support of the ordinance. She related that she had
been appointed in the mid-1980s to committee for the DEQ on toxics. She said the Eugene Toxics
Right-To-Know was not asking businesses to stop using chemicals or hazardous substances and that
the people deserved to know what was in the water, air, and soil. She asked the council not to
weaken the reporting aspect of the program. She urged the council to take courage and know that
Eugene was leading the nation in this. She suggested the program be expanded to include entities
such as the University of Oregon and other large public organizations. She felt that creative
public/private partnerships could result in comprehensive reporting.
Lisa Arkin, 29136 Gimpl Hill Road, Eugene, stated that she was a staff member for the Oregon
Toxics Alliance. She related that she had received many phone calls from as far away as New
York, Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts inquiring about the unique and ~not redundant"
MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2004 Page 6
Regular Meeting
model Toxic Right-To-Know law. She asserted the action of the City Council would be watched by
communities across the nation as the law represented the best in Toxics Right-To-Know laws. She
commented that the law was a model for municipal policy and gave value to the notion that the air
and water, both public spaces, required responsible care from all who used them.
Ms. Arkin addressed the criticisms by the business community that the law was unfair or flawed,
and stated that with the $2,000 cap, the cost incurred by a business was less than the cost incurred
by a family with an asthmatic child or a child with an immunological disease. She stressed that
there were health care costs associated with having toxics in the air and water.
Ms. Arkin recommended that the Eugene City Council appoint a task force to explore some of the
ideas presented by a number of speakers that there were better ways to fund the program, such as
expanding the number of businesses that participate looking at SIC codes and number of employees
and broadening the base so that smaller businesses were not so unfairly burdened by it.
In closing, Ms. Arkin said the citizens of Eugene appreciated the law, the staff that run the program,
and the willingness of businesses to participate. She urged adoption of the ordinance accepting the
budget as recommended by the Toxics Board.
Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing.
Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Pap~, moved to keep the record
open for seven days. The motion passed, 6:2; Councilors Kelly and Bettman
voting in opposition.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2004 Page 7
Regular Meeting
Message Page 1 of 1
POTTER Glen D
From: WALSTON Mary F
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 3:07 PM
To: POTTER Glen D
Subject: FW: Toxics Right-to-Know fees.
..... Original Message .....
From: Dave [mailto:davec@stprint.com]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 2:13 PM
To-' mayorandcc@ci.eugene.or, us
Subject: Toxics Right-to-Know fees.
Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council members,
I (we) strongly oppose the proposed fee increase. While the increased fee would certainly not put us out of business,
our concern is that the fees take away cash that could be used for constructive purposes (pay raises, equipment
purchases, etc). We are an employee owned compny and are proud to pay family wage incomes. The past two years
have seen erosion in our markets and margins and we have tightened our corporate belt. This issue of increased fees
is simply not business friendly. Local businesses would appreciate your support.
Sincerely,
Dave Crosby
Shelton Turnbull Solutions
3403 W 7th, Eugene
2/24/2004 City Council Agenda page 641
Message Page 1 of 1
POTTER Glen D
From: WALSTON Mary F
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 5:54 PM
To: POTTER Glen D
Subject: FW: Toxics Fees
FYi
..... Original Message .....
From: Mike Eide [mailto:mikee@clarkes-ind.com]
Sent: Friday, February20, 2004 5:38 PM
To: mayorandcc@ci.eugene.or.us
Subject: Toxics Fees
Mayor Jim Torry and city council members,
I am unable to attend the city council meeting scheduled for 2/23/04, so, on behalf of Clarke's Sheet Metal, I am
writing this email.
Clarke's has operated in Eugene for over 50 years and although we are not required to report our toxics we are
required to pay, this is inconsistent with the originial charter amendment, it is my understanding that only the
manufactures that are required to report would pay for this program. The proposed increase from $13.92 to $31.65 per
full time employee is not fair, times for small manufactures in this area are not good, our sales are down by 50% and
we are trying to keep the people we have employed.
Please,Please,Please find a way to stop this.
I think it's time to send this back to the voters, or add other industries, manufactures are not the only ones that create
waste.
Thank you for your time
Mike Eide
General Manager
Clarke's Sheet Metal, Inc.
2/24/2004 City Council Agenda page 642
POTTER Glen D
From: WALSTON Mary F
;ent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 2:55 PM
I'o: POTTER Glen D
Subject: FW: Regarding Toxic Fee Increase Public Hearing
FYI..
..... Original Message .....
From: CLYDE CARSON [mailto:CARSONC@usbakery.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 2:48 PM
To: mayorandcc@ci.eugene.or.us
Subject: Regarding Toxic Fee Increase Public Hearing
My name is Clyde Carson. I live at 618 D. Street, Springfield, OR 97477. I am an
industry representative on Eugene's Toxic Board.
The state fee cap for local chemical reporting programs was passed to prevent unreasonable
fees. At one time some companies were assessed fees as ridiculous as $17,000 per year for
Eugene's Toxics Program.
The State of Oregon, unlike the city of Eugene, recognizes that there must be some
reasonable limit to how much a company should have to pay for a local community right to
know program, given that we already have a very comprehensive state-wide program in place.
The result of the fee cap means that some companies will be paying a higher fee to make up
the difference in the budget shortfall. In short, we have replaced one inequity with
another.
~he root cause of the inequity is that the fee base is too narrow to support this type of
program and maintain reasonable fees regardless of the size of one's operations. This is
a problem inherent in such local programs and is one of many compelling arguments as to
why it is bad public policy to regulate these concerns on the local level.
Do not construe the unanimous fee recommendation by the Toxic Board to mean that business
group supports this way of funding the program. We have tried without success to
recommend public funding and/or voter referral. It is even unclear to us if those are
options we can recommend as a board given that we are both created by and constrained by
the Charter. If we had thought it would have made any symbolic difference we easily could
have voted "no" on the fee recommendation.
As board members, our choices may be limited in ways that you as the City Council are not.
1. You have the power to conclude that the program in place is not the same program
passed by the voters and that it should be referred to them.
2. You can trim the budget back, but be advised that if the program continues we want it
to be predictable and stable. 3. You can change the Charter, but not advised without
public approval. 4. You can realize that Eugene has serious chronic problems attracting
and keeping jobs in this community and programs like the Eugene Toxics Program- Hurt us
deeply!
.............................. Electronic Communications Disclaimer
This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged
information for the use of the designated recipients named above. If you are not the
CityCouncilA~enda page643
Message Page 1 of 1
POTTER Glen D
From: Jennifer Solomon [jennifer. l.solomon@ci.eugene.or, us]
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 2:11 PM
To: lynda.l.rose@ci.eugene.or.us; glen.d.potter@ci.eugene.or, us
Subject: FW: Toxics right to know fee increase
Lynda & Glenn,
Will you please include this in the public record, if you haven't already? Thank you.
Jennifer Solomon
..... Original Message .....
From: .lenlaney@aol.com [mailto:.lenlaney@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 3:24 PM
To: .lennifer. L.Soloman@ci.eugene.or. us
Cc: mayorandcc@ci.eugene.or, us
Subject: Toxics right to know fee increase
Dear Ms. Soloman,
I am the General Manager of Griffith Rubber in Eugene, OR. Griffith has been here since 1977. Griffith is an original
member of the businesses that must report under the Toxics Right to Know program.
I am writing today in support of sending the Toxics Right to Know program back to the voters to see if they would still
be in favor of it if it was funded from the General Fund. I think that would be the only true test of its importance to the
community. Otherwise I think the program should be eliminated. This program is yet another example of how the city
of Eugene gained its reputation for not being business friendly.
I am aware that the city of Eugene does not operate like a business. However, I can assure you that if I proposed this
large of a price increase to my customers, I would lose their business. It would be even worse if I blamed part of it on
inflation, as Mt. Potter did. I am not sure what reports he is reading, but everything I read points to little or no inflation.
Certainly not enough to drive a budget up.
In the current economy it does not make sense for businesses to have the addtional compliance cost as well as the fee
for this program. It does not seem like the public benefit is equal to the cost per business. I would be interested in
how many people actually review the information once it is given to the city. By people I mean the public, not people
who review the information as part of their job. My guess is, not a lot. The amount of time used to generate the report
probably far exceeds the public's interest in the report.
Thank you for taking the time to read this e-mail. If you have any questions I can be reached at 344.6227. I will be
out-of-town on Friday the 20th and Monday the 23rd of February.
Sincerely,
Jennifer D. Laney
2/24/:2004 City Council Agenda page 644
1017 S. Danebo Avenue
· PO Box 22038
Eugene, OR 97402-0414
CYLINDERS. INC.
February 23, 2004
To Mayor Jim Torrey and the city council.
We are outraged to hear that the Toxic Right-to-Know fees will be increasing by 125% to
$31.65 per FTE!! These fees were approved by the city council and the public voted them
in, these fees must be paid for out of the general fund.
How do you expect to bring or keep businesses in this city if you keep putting these
unnecessary expenses on the companies who are trying to do business in this city? We
are faced with a disadvantage with similar businesses that operate here but are outside
the city limits!!
You are NOT making Eugene an attractive place to do business. We hope you will take
our concerns into consideration when you are making your final decision.
Thank you,
Tom Philip
President
Pamela Dickey
Administrator
HYDRAULZC & PNEUMATTC CYLTNDER-
Design/Manufacturing/Repair
City Council Agenda page 645
POTTER Glen D
From: WALSTON Mary F
Sent: Monday, February 23, :>004 12:15 PM
To: POTTER Glen D
Subject: FW: RTK Funding
pic10917.gif (3 KB)
..... Original Message .....
From: gbjurling@parker.com [mailto:gbjurling@parker.com]
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 11:57 AM
To: mayorandcc@ci.eugene.or.us
Subject: RTK Funding
A quick note to Mr. Torrey, and the Eugene City Council.
Unfortunately I have been out of town on business and was not able to be notified of the
meeting tonight (Feb.23rd) in time for me to change my calendar and participate. I would
like to take this opportunity to express to you what the content of my statement would be
if the opportunity to speak came up.
I would recommend to the Mayor and the Council to go along
with what ever the Toxic Right to Know group wants in terms of funds. This will serve to
illuminate Eugene as a place that companies manufacturing a product want to avoid. As the
existing companies finally get burdened to the point of relocating and new companies avo5
Eugene, the taxes that once came from manufacturers will be gone. The voters will finally
understand what a small group has done to the local economy. They can then wonder where
the money will come from for basic services, such as schools, street maintenance, fire and
police protection, public transportation, etc. The list of services is long and the money
will be short. If continuation of this program is necessary, the financial burden will
again fall onto the backs of the resident voters.
It was in the charter amendment to not have this program supported by the tax payers, but
there have already been many departures from the originally stated program.
Why wouldn't having the city via the general fund pay for the program be yet another
departure from the original amendment to the city charter?
The thoughts expressed in this are my own and are not sponsored by my employer.
Thank you for taking time to read this,
Glen Bjurling
{Embedded image moved to file: pic10917.gif)
"PLEASE NOTE: The Preceding information may be confidential or privileged. It only should
be used or disseminated for the purpose of conducting business with Parker. If you are not
an intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then
delete the information from your system. Thank you for your cooperation."
1
City Council Agenda page 646
POTTER Glen D
From: WALSTON Mary F
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 12:19 PM
[o: POTTER Glen D
Subject: FW: Council Meeting Tonight
..... Original Message .....
From: les maguire [mailto:lesmaguire@hotmait.com]
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 12:01 PM
To: mayorandcc@ci.eugene.or.us
Cc: cpa-bounces@efn.org
Subject: RE: Council Meeting Tonight
Dear Mayor Torrey and Members of City Council,
I, along with a majority of citizens who passed this measure in 1996,
support the Toxics Right-to-Know.
The business community is complaining about the unfair burden on smaller
businesses--and rightly so, since a few businesses were able to shift the
burden of fees to smaller businesses! In passing the Toxics Right-to-Know
measure, Eugene citizens voted to have ALL the hazardous substance users
cover %he cost of informing the community about their production, use, and
release of hazardous substances into the community's environment.
I urge you, as members of the City CounCil, to take the necessary steps to
redistribute the burden of fees to include ALL businesses.
Thank you,
Leslie Maguire
420 Goodyear Street
Eugene, OR 97402
Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee when you click here.
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
City Council AcJenda page 647
SOME FACTS ABOUT EUGENE'S
TOXICS RIGHT-TO-KNOW LAW
AND CURRENT ATTEMPTS TO KILL IT
What are the two.basic elements of Eugene's Right-to-Know law that
Eugene voted to place in the City's constitution ("Charter") in 19967
1. Hazardous substance-using businesses must report their toxics releases.
They must tell Eugene's citizens how many pounds of which hazardous
substances they use and produce AND where these hazardous substances
go (e.g., air, water, products).
2. Hazardous substance-using businesses must cover the costs of reporting
their toxics releases.
They, and not citizens exposed to these released toxics, must cover the
costs of reporting their hazardous substance use, production, and release.
Has the law changed so much that it's time to put it out to the voters?
NO. The entire toxics reporting system (with one insignificant change) has
remained almost entirely unchanged for its entire six-year history, despite attacks on it by
some businesses in court and two Legislatures.
The fee structure has been altered, at the behest of the businesses themselves. In a
bizarre 1999 court opinion,x the businesses succeeded in prohibiting Eugene from
collecting fees only from those businesses who actually report hazardous substance use.
As a result, businesses that use fewer or even no hazardous substances and therefore don't
fill out annual reports to the public must also pay fees.
The businesses then got the Oregon Legislature to cap Eugene's toxics reporting
fees at $2,000 per company, which cap goes into effect this year. This shiRs fees from
the large businesses to the smaller businesses:
~ The Court ruled that Eugene's RTK program is like the State Fire Marshal's what-mixtures-are-stored-on-
site-in-barrels-for-when-firefighters-come prognun. In the 1980s, the State Fire Marshal, in an attempt to
keep all fire marshal stored-on-site data in Salem, got the Legislature to prevent "quantity-based" fees on
local hazardous substance programs that are like the State Fire Marshal's program (i.e., local fire marshals'
programs). The State Fire Marshal's program is completely different than Eugene's RTK program: It does
not require any reporting of chemicals released to air, water, or soil; requires no inpnt-output balancing;
requires no repotting of ba?ardous substances produced on site; allows reporting of mixtures rather than
chemicals; allows reporting of ranges rather than precise amounts, etc.
City Council Agenda page 649
it Full-time 2003 Fees 2004 Fees
employees Fee p r Total fee Fee per Total fee
Company (FTE's) FTE FTE
2003
Hynix 771 in2003; $13.92 $10,732 $1.66 $2,000
(Hyundai) 1,207 in
2004
10-employee 10 $13.92 $139.20 $31.65 $316.50
company
Businesses have shifted fees; now Clyde Carson of Williams Bakery_ is proposing
to the City Council to send the whole law out to the voters, hoping that businesses will
outspend citizens in the campaign, and the law will be killed, and businesses will be able
to go back to keeping secret their toxic releases into Eugene's air, water, and
environment.
Are there solutions to the fee-shifting that businesses have caused ?
YES. The City Council could institute either of the following two changes by
ordinance, in order to substantially reduce the 'results of fee-shifting from large
companies to smaller companies2 AND improve hazardous substance reporting in our
community:
1. The City could expand the SIC code range for businesses that must report
This would reduce the fees for any one business AND provide Eugene citizens
with a more complete picture of the toxics to which they are being exposed. For instance,
the City could include all SIC Codes that contain businesses that report to the State Fire
Marshal that they have large amounts of hazardous substances stored on their site. The
City could use the same threshold of 2,640 pounds that triggers reporting by businesses
of SIC #20-4t39 in the Charter and could exempt businesses that simply store and sell (but
do not use, process, or alter) large quantities of hazardous substances (for example, a
retail store).
Some businesses covered by the program have complained that the program is too
small; that there are many other businesses that use and release hazardous substances that
aren't currently expected to report. This would address their concerns. The overall cost of
the program would go up slightly, e.g., the staffperson overseeing the program might go
from thee quarter-time to full-time, at least initially while more companies learn how to
report where their toxics are going, but the fees would be spread out over many more
businesses.
2 Even with the fee-shifting that the businesses engineered, the largest annual increase in
fee per full-time equivalent employee is $17.75 per year.
City Council Agenda page 650
3
2. The City could reduce the threshold number of employees or remove it
completely;
This would increase the number of businesses supporting the program and
reporting. Auto body paint shops and dry cleaners, for instance, would report. This
would likely reduce the fee on each small business to a minimal impact.
Two additional steps, which would not involye passing an ordinance, would help
un-do what the businesses have done to themselves:
3. The City could actively lobby the state legislature to remove the $2,000 cap that is
forcing the City to increase the financial burden on small businesses.
The state should not be telling local governments how they can raise money to run
local programs.
4. The City could actively lobby the state legislature to acknowledge that Eugene's
Right to Know program is substantially different, not similar, to the State Fire
Marshal's hazardous substance reporting program (see footnote 1, page 1)
If the State were to acknowledge that Eugene's program is different than the State
Fire Marshal's, only those Eugene businesses that produce or use 2,640 pounds of
hazardous chemicals a year would pay the fee for the reporting program.
5. The City could charge a small business tax to companies within certain SIC
codes and then use those funds to pay for the program or other costs the City
wants to cover.
SUMMARY: Only those people who are wanting to .see the reporting of toxics
eliminated are proposing that the City re-vote on its constitution's (charter's) law re:
toxics right-to-know.
How well has Eugene's Charter law on toxics right-to-know been
working apart from the fee-shifting shenanigans?
Great.
1. Eugene has the best local toxics-right-to-know reporting system in the
nation and it has been upheld in state court and twice in the Oregon State Legislature.
2. All covered companies are reporting annually and paying their fees
annually. Almost no enforcement actions have had to be taken in its 6-year history.
City Council Agenda page 651
3. The Right-to-Know user-friendly website,
http://www.ci.eugene.or, us/toxics/, is being visited in ever-increasing numbers:
1999-early 2000 About 300 visits/month
later 2000-2001 About 700 visits/month
2002 About 1,400 visits/month
2003 1,500-2,000 visits/month
4. The data on the website easily lend themselves to big-picture analysis (see
the February 2004 report, "Toxics Right-to-Know Program Five Year Data-base
Summary Report: 1998-2002). Numerous businesses have significantly reduced their
toxics releases since the program began
5. The Toxics Board, consisting equally of right-to-know advocates and
representatives of reporting companies, almost always works out unanimously or near-
unanimously supported solutions to issues brought before them for discussion.
--Compiled by Mary O'Brien for Oregon Toxics Alliance, February 23, 2004.
City Council Agenda page 652
EUGENE'S TOXICS RIGHT TO KNOW cHARTER AMENDMENT
1996 Early Spring · Write drafts and final charter amendment
Late Spring/Summer · Gather 11,000 signatures-
Fall · Campaign for charter amendment
· November 5 · Charter amendment passes 55 % to 45 %
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ATTACKS ON THE
RTK CHARTER AMENDMENT RTK CHARTER AMENDMENT
1997 Toxics Board mee~s 26 times to Eleven companies and Committee
formulate policy, identify/inform for Responsible Regulation bring
companies, develop reporting suit in Circuit Court; lose on all 12
handbook, etc. counts
Oregon Senate passes bill to
eliminate community right to know; ~
House runs out of time by three
minutes to pass the bill
Companies file appeal of lawsuit
1998 Companies track toxics from Jan. 1
to Dec. 31
Toxics Board meets monthly to
fomulate policy, develop reporting
software, answer questions by
reporting facilities, develop trade
secret forms, etc.
1999 48 cOmpanies report 1998 Appeals Court upholds Eugene's
(Jan to inputs/outputs in April; reports RTK law; but claims the law
present), available on duplicates State Fire Marshal's
www.ci.eugene.or.us/toxics store-and-truck reporting and
therefore can't charge "quantity-
based" fees (i.e., fees only for
manufacturers using 2,640 pounds
or more of hazardous substances)
Toxics Board meets monthly to adjust Legislature p'asses HB 2431, Which
policy, refine software, hear cases of limits fees for reporting companies
noncompliance, respond to Appeals (not in Eugene until2004); requires
Court ruling procedures for exempting
manufacturers whose emissions do
not cause more than a "little" harm;
limits per-day fines for violating
RTK requirements; requires state
agency to report to 2001 Legislature
re: state RTK.
2000- Companies are tracking and reporting
present Annual toxics inputs and outputs;
-' 'Toxics Board meets~ -0 times/year
· City Council Agenda page 653
To: Eugene City Council and Mayor Torrey
From: Mary O'Brien, co-author of Eugene's Toxics Right-to-Know Law and six-year
member of Eugene's Toxics Board (1997-2003)
RE: How a Few Eugene Businesses shifted the fee system of Eugene's Toxics Right-
to-Know Law
Date: 23 February 2004
I wish to explain the fee-shiffing issue before you tOnight. Others will address
how to fix it.
There are two key elements of the toxics right-to-know law that Eugene citizens
placed in our City's Charter:
1. Hazardous substance-using businesses must report their toxics releases.
2. Hazardous substance-using businesses must cover the costs of reporting
their toxics releases.
Throughout the law's seven-year life, NOTHING significant has changed in the
first key element, the toxics use and release reporting requkements.
The second element, the fee structure to cover the costs of toxics reporting, has
only been altered. It has been altered at the behest ora few Eugene businesses.
They first got a bizarre 1999 court opinion that Eugene's RTK program is like the
State Fire Marshal's program which is a what-mixtures-are-stored:on-site-in-barrels-for-
when-firefighters-come program. In the 1980s, the State Fire Marshal, in a power move
to keep all fire marshal data in Salem, got the Legislature to prevent "quantity-based"
fees on local hazardous substance programs that are like the State Fire Marshal's
program. This was aimed against local fire marshals' programs, but years later, the Court
applied it to Eugene's right-to-know law. In fact, the State Fire Marshal's program is
completely different than Eugene's RTK program: It does not require any reporting of
chemicals released to air, water, or soil; requires no input-output balancing; requires no
reporting of hazardous substances produced on site; allows reporting of mixtures rather
than individual chemicals; allows reporting of ranges rather than precise amounts, etc.
But with this ruling, the businesses succeeded in prohibiting Eugene from
collecting fees only from those businesses who actually report hazardous substance use.
As a result, businesses that use fewer or even no hazardous substances and therefore don't
fill out annual reports to the public must also pay fees.
Next, these few Eugene businesses and the powerful Associated Oregon
Industries got the 1999 Oregon Legislature to cap Eugene's toxics reporting fees at
$2,000 per company, which cap goes into effect this year. This shifts fees from the large
City Council Agenda page 655
.businesses to the smaller businesses. For instance, in 2003, all businesses covered by the
program paid a fee of $13.92 per full-time employee equivalent. This year, with 1,207
employees, Hynix is paying $1.66 per employee, and small companies are paying $31.65
per employee. Eugene's largest reporting company, with 1,207 employees is paying
$2,000; and a 10-employee company is paying $316.50.
So, as you will hear from others tonight, you can either fix the fee-shifting
element that a few businesses have created, with an ordinance or getting the Legislature
to acknowledge our program is different than the State Fire Marshal's; or you can use
fee-shifting as an excuse to try to kill the law and restore secrecy to hazardous substance
releases in our community, by sending the Charter Amendment out for a second vote.
But don't try to kid anyone that the law has substantively changed. It hasn't. It is
intact and working well.
Table 1: Fee-shifting from 2003-2004 in Eugene's Toxics Right-to-Know Law
because of a 1999 state law passed at the behest of some Eugene
businesses.
# Full-time 2003 Fees 2004 Fees
employees Fee per Total fee Fee per Total fee'
Company (FTE's) FTE FTE
2003
Hynix 771 in 2003; $13.92 $10,732 $1.66 $2,000
(Hyundai) 1,207 in
2004
10-employee 10 $13.92 $139.20 $31.65 $316.50
company
City Council Agenda page 656
Q~, ,on: Do "substantial parts of the Initiative [i.e.,
Eugene's Charter Amendment] require
information identical to the information
employers must provide to the State Fire
Marshal"?
(See p. 15, line 16, Appeals Court Opinion)
STATE FIRE MARSHAL EUGENE ANNUAL
TOXICS REPORTING ELEMENT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
. SUBSTANCE SURVEY ACCOUNTING
Inclusion in fee schedule based on quantities of hazardous substances? YES NO
Only companies storing threshold
amounts pay a fee
c~ Size of fees based on quantities of baTardous substances? YES NO
,-+
'< Pounds, cubic feet, or gallons Pounds
c~ Mit of measure
O
t'-
= Range (e.g., 1,000-4,999 Point estimate (e.g. 5 pounds)
c~ Precision of estimate of quantities . '
--- pounds)*
n~ YES NO
'" Report storage of each substance for a year?
o_ · Maximum*
-o · · Average*
o~ storage of each hazardous substance on specific days? NO YES
~n · Jan. 1 as waste
· Jan. 1 as inventory
· Dec 31 as waste
· Dec. 31 as inventory
Report physical state (i.e., gas, liquid, or solid) of hazardous YES NO
: substances?
Report amount "used" of each hazardous substance per year? · Amount transported (in storage · Amount produced, whether
containers) to and/or from the stored or not
facility each year*
· Amount shipped to facility,
whether stored or not
· Difference between amount
stored on Jan. I and Dec. 31
Report production of hazardous substances? NO YES
Report shipping of hazardous substances? YES YES
· To and/or from* · To
· From as waste
· From as product
Report production of hazardous substances? NO YES
Report release of ba?ardous substances to the air? NO YES
Report releaSe of hazardous substances to surface water? NO YES
Report release of hazardous substances to sewage treatment facility? NO YES
Report disposal of b_a:,~rdous substances on site? NO YES
Report mount of hazardous substances consumed in the facility's NO YES
processes?
Report amount of hazardous substances eliminated through treatment at NO YES
the facility?
Report amount of hazardous substances eliminated through energy NO YES
recovery at the facility?
Report amount of hazardous substances incorporated into product? NO YES
State clamge in stares of hazardous substance since last report (e.g., Is it YES NO
a substance not reported before? Is more being used than before?)? Is obvious from each year's
materials accounting report
Report change in the hazardous substance as it is used within the NO YES
facility? · Consumed in facility's
process
· Eliminated through treatment
· · Eliminated through energy
recovery
* Unuseable for materials accounting purposes