HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 04/04/01 JEO JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS' MEETING
April 4, 2001
5:30 p.m. (McNutt Room, City of Eugene)
6:30 p.m. (Public Hearing - Eugene City Council Chambers)
Mayor Jim Torrey, City of Eugene, called to order the meeting of the Eugene City Council.
Present: Bonny Bettman, Pat Farr, David Kelly, Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Gary
Pape, Gary Rayor and Betty Taylor.
Commissioner Anna Morrison reconvened the meeting of the Lane County Board of
Commissioners. Present: Bobby Green, Sr., Peter Sorenson and Cindy Weeldreyer. Bill
Dwyer was excused.
Springfield City Councilor Tammy Fitch called to order the Springfield City Council.
Present: Christine Lundberg, David Ralston, and Fred Simmons. Springfield Mayor
Leiken was not yet present.
1. JOINT WORK SESSION
Carol Heinkel, LCOG, explained the public facility and service plan was proposed
as a refinement plan to the Metro Plan and is a periodic review work task. She
added that when it becomes adopted, it would complete the Metro Plan periodic
review. She gave a slide presentation.
Heinkel said that the public facility and service plan ensures that key urban facilities
and services will be provided to planned land uses in the urban growth boundary in
a timely, efficient and environmentally responsible manner. She added it provided
coordinated framework for public facility planning within the urban growth boundary
and complied with statewide planning Goal 11. She noted the planning
commissions of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County had unanimously
recommended the refinement plan. She said the plan was prepared by 16 agencies
and there was a subcommittee that met with school administrators from the region.
Heinkel recalled there was extensive opportunities for public involvement
throughout the process. She said the process began in July 1998 and there had
been list of interested parties (1,200 names) and they notified people on the list.
She noted there was a workshop in April 1999 and an open house in October 2000
which were not well attended. She added this information is posted on the LCOG
website.
Heinkel stated there were two products in the study, a draft public facilities and
services plan and an existing conditions and alternative report. She noted there are
three urban reserve areas outside the urban growth boundary intended to serve
land requirements beyond 20 years.
Heinkel noted that the text amendment to the Metro Plan and the planned water,
wastewater, storm water and an electrical project list were all adopted as part of the
Metro Plan. She said the electrical facilities were included in the Public Facilities
and Services Plan at the request of the providers, but was not required by law.
Heinkel stated there was research and discussion about nodal development
proposed as part of TransPlan and there is a policy in the Public Facilities and
Services Plan to coordinate services to areas targeted for high density infill by
mixed use and nodal development.
Heinkel explained that storm water was a major focus of the plan because the last
Public Facilities and Services Plan was adopted in 1987, at the same time as the
Clean Water Act, including new federal requirements related to storm water and the
protection of water quality.
Heinkel noted another theme was coordinating school planning with land use
planning. She said at this point the policy direction was to initiate a process on
school height, site size and location. She added that local governments have some
regulatory authority to retain neighborhood schools and buildings and support
retention of the university and Lane Community College.
Heinkel explained that locating public facilities outside the urban growth boundary
was a major theme. She said there were no policies in the past but the area had
grown to the point where it was necessary to locate some facilities outside the
urban growth boundary. She noted they received a signed letter from DLCD which
gave clear communication on the state's position. She said they are to locate new
school buildings in the metro plan boundary within the urban growth boundary and
that it is consistent with state law. She added the other point is to locate new urban
water, wastewater and storm water facilities on farmland and forestland outside of
the urban growth boundary when there is no reasonable alternative and that it
exclusively serves land inside the urban growth boundary and complies with state
and local requirements. She added it is also for protecting fish bearing streams
outside the urban growth boundary, consistent with Lane County riparian standards.
Heinkel said there was policy requiring development to pay the cost of extending
urban facilities, (allowing a subsidy when consistent with local goals and policies)
using SDC's, user fees and other tools to fund operations, maintenance and
improvements. She added direction was given to relate wastewater and storm
water fees to the system and to continue intergovernmental cooperation and
assessment.
Regarding public involvement, Heinkel said they had two open houses, a joint
planning commission/public hearing. The planning commissions recommended
approval unanimously. She added that following tonight's meeting, there would be
local adoption and acknowledgement by LCDC.
Nancy Nathanson, Councilor, City of Eugene, asked when telecommunications
would be included in the maps and texts of the public facilities and planned
expansion.
Heinkel responded they considered that at the beginning but there wasn't enough
interest in including telecommunications.
Jim Croteau, City of Eugene, stated the whole approach to periodic review had
been to do what the state required, but not anything extra. He added since
telecommunications was not part of the public facility plan, it was not included.
Nathanson stated that telecommunications is becoming an essential utility, and
should become part of the planning document.
Weeldreyer concurred with Nathanson.
Betty Taylor, Councilor, City of Eugene, suggested they plan for the use of facilities
and not spread them out.
Bonny Bettman, Councilor, City of Eugene, regretted there was so little involvement
with the public. She said a new tactic was needed because people weren't
attending public forums. With regard to policy G 35 (supporting subsidies for
development that fulfills goals and recommendations of the Metro Plan) she said
(given the scarce resources), that it might serve the communities better if they
looked to more specific wording so the subsidies were directed toward high density,
infill and mixed use development. She asked to drop Goal GM Policy #2, because
based on the DLCD's recommendation, it was not consistent with Goal 14. She
said there were changes that happened after the planning commissions examined
it. She wanted a statement on limiting runoff. She noted that in the glossary "full
range" included transit, but the minimal level did not. She explained it stated that
land within the urban growth boundary might be converted from urbanizable to
urban only through annexation to a city. She noted they could be converting land to
urban without any transit service because the requirement for the full range was
broad. She wanted that language strengthened.
On Goal 14 issues that Bettman discussed, Heinkel explained that staff had also
discussed the letter from DLCD and their recommendation was to delete the policy.
On the G 17 policy, Bettman noted that her comments were based on testimony
from George Grier. She suggested taking out "reduces the negative effects" from
increases and run off to say, "and runoff."
David Kelly, Councilor, City of Eugene, echoed Nathanson's on the importance of
telecommunications. He noted that state law didn't require that police and fire be
placed in public plans either.
Croteau commented that there was more emphasis on the need for planned public
facilities located outside of the urban growth boundary to serve development inside
the urban growth boundary. He added there were more issues with storm water
due to the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. He noted the elected
officials recently decided to not have urban reserves in separate work sessions. He
added they would come back with an official Metro Plan amendment.
Bobby Green, Commissioner, Lane County Board of Commissioners, asked how
consistent this plan should be with TransPlan in discussing transportation and
locating public facilities outside the urban growth boundary.
With regard to the roads, Heinkel responded they would serve people outside the
urban growth boundary. She noted what was proposed is that these specific
facilities (roads not included) would be located outside of the urban growth
boundary exclusively to serve properties within the urban growth boundary. She
said if changes should occur to the Metro Plan that would make it inconsistent, it
would be amended at that time. She said it would be whichever document was
adopted first and changed later as other things were adopted.
Cindy Weeldreyer, Commissioner, Lane County Board of Commissioners, asked if
the changes would help or exacerbate the high cost of housing.
Heinkel stated the intention of the Public Facilities and Services Plan is to provide
services in the most efficient manner possible. She said planning ahead and
looking to where growth would occur and planning the facilities accomplishes that.
She said that should reduce the impact on affordable housing.
Peter Sorenson, Commissioner, Lane County Board of Commissioners, asked why
they didn't expand the urban growth boundary to provide services to people within
the urban growth boundary. He asked about creating a new policy for facilities near
the urban growth boundary. He said they don't help people outside the urban
growth boundary.
Heinkel responded it was a policy shift due to a change in state law that occurred
while the study took place. She said this allowed local jurisdictions to locate
facilities outside the urban growth boundary. She noted there was a policy
proposed relating to extending services outside of the urban growth boundary that
is close to the existing policy. She said this would limit it to what it is currently, with
the exception of a health hazard. She said locating the publ ic facilities and services
outside the urban growth boundary would serve people inside the urban growth
boundary exclusively. She noted if anyone wanted to hook up to services outside
the urban growth boundary, they would not be allowed to.
Simmons concurred with Nathanson on the telecommunications process. He said
when the process started, there was one phone company, but since then, city and
county services, schools and fire stations are all linked by fiber optics. He said to
not plan for it would be a mistake and they might lose access to high-speed data.
Gary Pape, Councilor, City of Eugene, concurred with Nathanson and the other
elected officials about including telecommunications.
Tammy Fitch, Councilor, City of Springfield, stated she appreciated the work that
staff had done. She said that telecommunications is vital, and since this was a
working document, it was ongoing. She said this was a good solid plan.
Heinkel recalled that another plan, Region 2050 was underway and that could be
an opportunity to discuss other facilities like telecommunications.
Weeldreyer noted that most utilities had GIS maps showing where their major
transition lines are. She didn't think it would be a high-cost item to add to this.
Heinkel suggested coming back with a cost estimate to do a work program on
telecommunications. She noted it was not funded through the current process.
Mayor Torrey closed the Work Session for the City of Eugene at 6:30 p.m.
Commissioner Morrison recessed the meeting for the Lane County Board of
Commissioners at 6:30 p.m.
Mayor Leiken closed the Work Session for the City of Springfield at 6:30 p.m.
2. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance PA 1160/In the Matter of
Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to
Adopt a New Public Facilities and Services Element, Planned Public Facilities
Project Lists and Maps, and Related Changes to the Plan Text; Adopting a New
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan as a
Refinement Plan to the Metro Plan; and Adopting a Severability Clause.
Commissioner Anna Morrison opened up the Public Hearing for the Lane
County Board of Commissioners.
Mayor Jim Torrey opened up the Public Hearing for the City of Eugene.
Mayor Sid Leiken opened up the Public Hearing for the City of Springfield.
Carol Heinkel, Project Coordinator, LCOG, entered into the record two
letters, one from the Eugene Water and Electric Board and the other from Oregon
Communities a Voice in Annexations by Jerry Ritter.
Geor.qe Grier, 13421/2 N. 66th Street, Springfield, was concerned about the public process
for siting urban facilities outside of the urban growth boundary. He noted the focus
was policy G 29. He said siting urban facilities on resource land is new, with not a
lot of processing. He said it was appropriate to consider the siting of urban facilities
on resource lands not as a director's decision but an opportunity to have something
heard before the planning commission or hearings official. He noted the urban
facilities process would have to be run through Lane County. On storm water
system improvements (page 102), he said there are a series listed for Cedar Creek
and the East Springfield area. He said that carrying capacity for Cedar Creek did
not meet current build out and would not meet anticipated build out. He said those
problems needed to be addressed. He added if this was the land use decision for
the projects, there wasn't a lot that the public could provide testimony about. He
noted these involve projects on private land where the property owners had not
been notified. He said when these items come back in a more detailed form, the
public has the opportunity to have public hearing.
Grier said the projects that are anticipated by the policy change occurred at
the legislature (HB 2865, referenced in staff notes and in responses to his previous
testimony.) There were several attempts at the legislature to address the potential
to site urban facilities on resource lands and the version that was passed wasn
't clear. He stated the language said that a utility facility was necessary for public service
but it wasn't clear whether an urban storm water detention or treatment facility
would be allowed. He added there was an application for a build out in an area
adjacent to a floodplain and the developer proposed storm water detention and
treatment offsite.
Grier explained if this wasn
't discussed, an application would come to Lane County where it is the director's decision
(and discretionary use) and could be approved without a public hearing. He said
these facilities are sited in the floodplain, agricultural or forestland and they could
impact the way people live. He said there are serious issues that affect people who
live adjacent to the urban area. He said it would be a good opportunity for the
people in the neighborhood to interface with the design process so any
unanticipated consequences could be mitigated. He asked for a public hearing
when an urban facility is to be sited on rural resource land.
There being no one else signed up to speak; Mayor Torrey closed the Public Hearing for
the City of Eugene.
Simmons said that Grier raised a question about siting a project that benefits
people in and outside the urban growth boundary. He asked if the language
precluded the siting of that facility in that process.
Greg Mott, Planning Department, City of Springfield, responded that the city
as an applicant for a land use approval goes through whatever the County requires
for land outside their jurisdiction. He noted the County has property zoned and
Lane Code specifies the process. He said Grier
's comments were well taken. Mott added he wasn't aware that the scope of the
description of the projects in Cedar Creek was limited. He noted there was nothing
in the plan that specified that the plan would dictate what process of review would
occur for the facilities outside of the urban growth boundary. He said they assumed
state law would specify whether the use would be permitted and the County code
would identify the process of citizen involvement or review that occurs.
Simmons noted they would be adopting a plan that everyone would be
agreeing to but only the County holds the requirements for a public hearing. He
said Grier
's questions were valid, because some entities may be treated dissimilarly. He said there
might be an issue where a school couldn't be built but a sludge facility could be put
on agricultural land. He asked if it were a "use it or lose it theory" once the plan
was adopted.
Mott said they would be making a policy decision incorporating a law
indicating certain urban facilities outside urban growth boundaries could provide
service to people within urban growth boundaries. He noted it had not been
available in the past. He said that certain urban activities had always been allowed
on resource land through a review process, but it had never been specific. He said
the action they would be taking establishes the Public Facilities and Services Plan
as a document that embodies policy.
Kent Howe, Land Management, noted that any new proposed sites or
substantial changes in locations to identify public facilities in the public facility plan
would require amendments to the plan and a public hearing process. He said the
concern is that there would not be a public hearing for the location of urban facilities
that would occur outside the urban growth boundary. He said a new proposed site
(or substantial change in the location of an existing site) that is in the plan, required
a public hearing to change those locations or identify new sites. He added once a
site is identified, the laws applicable in the jurisdiction where the site was located
would determine whether or not it met the requirements for the actual siting of the
utility facility located outside the urban growth boundary.
Celia Barry, Land Management, explained that this plan is a public facilities
plan and they were concerned about having private development included in a
review process. She added that under current state and local law, public facility
siting outside the urban growth boundary requires a special use permit from the
County. She said there are two levels of special use permits, a hearings official and
a planning director level. She added that both require notice, opportunity to
comment and opportunity to appeal. She noted, under policy level G 29 (page 20),
the appropriate county land use approval must be obtained to site the facilities
outside of the urban growth boundaries. She said the rule regarding public facilities
states that the following is not a public facility: a system provided solely for the
collection, transfer and/or disposal of storm water runoff.
Kelly asked that before this was adopted, if the commissioners should
consider some modifications to the Lane Code so facilities proposed to be located
outside the urban growth boundary get appropriate notice of a hearing. He
recommended the commissioners examine current Lane Code to see if it provides
enough awareness to property owners.
On G 3 (allowance for modifications from the project list), Bettman asked if
minor changes could go through without any amendment. Also, if it were
determined by planning staff that it was a minor change, then the plan would not
have to be amended.
Heinkel responded that staff could investigate the possibility of defining a
minor change and providing options for the elected officials.
On G 3, Rayor asked about public projects that were not included in the
public facility and service project maps (in which unanticipated funding had been
obtained), and if there should be a plan update.
Heinkel responded that staff agreed with the objection that Grier raised and
the addendum the planning commissions forwarded deletes that portion. She noted
that Exhibit 3 contained three addenda, adding storm water projects in the River
Road area. She said that addendum 2 clarified some projects related to electrical
facilities and addendum 3 was in response to Grier
's testimony before the planning commissions. She added the first recommended change
was to G 3, to delete a specification regarding amending.
Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council at 7:05 p.m.
Mayor Leiken closed the Public Hearing and adjourned the meeting at 7:05
p.m.
Commissioner Morrison closed the Public Hearing at 7:05 p.m.
MOTION: to approve the Second Reading and Setting a Third Reading and Deliberation
for May 30, 2001 for Ordinance PA 1160.
Weeldreyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.
VOTE: 4-0.
Commissioner Morrison adjourned the meeting for the Lane County Board of
Commissioners at 7:05 p.m.
Melissa Zimmer
Recording Secretary