Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B: Preparation for JEO Meeting ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Work Session: Preparation for Joint Elected Officials Meeting Meeting Date: January 12, 2009 Agenda Item Number: B Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Lisa Gardner www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541/682-5208 ISSUE STATEMENT The purpose of this work session is to provide background information in preparation for the Joint Elected Officials (JEO) meeting on issues related to the Metro Plan scheduled for January 13, 2009. A link to the Metro Plan can be found by clicking on Metro Planning Documents at the Lane Council of Governments web page at the following location: http://www.lcog.org/metroplan.cfm BACKGROUND Over the past year, the JEO has been meeting regularly to discuss a range of issues including transportation planning, land use planning, and public safety. On December 1, 2008, the Mayors of Eugene and Springfield, as well as the Chair of the Lane County Board of Commissioners met to set the agenda for the January 13, 2009, joint meeting between the three jurisdictions. Two topics were identified from a list of five issues generated by the Board of County Commissioners for discussion by the Joint Elected Officials: ? Issue #2: Metro Plan Description of Urban Services ? Issue #5: Jurisdictional Autonomy/Metro Plan Boundary Adjustment Lane County staff has prepared a memorandum and provided background materials for the JEO agenda packet highlighting the two topics identified above. That memo, from Lane County Planning Director Kent Howe, is being provided to you under separate cover as part of this week’s council packet, rather than as an attachment to this Agenda Item Summary. As background, Lane County Commissioners have previously met to discuss specific areas of concern related to the Metro Plan, including urban transition issues, as well as financing mechanisms for public services. The memorandum from Lane County reflects the history of the county consideration of these issues, and proposes specific strategies to be discussed at th the January 13 JEO meeting. To prepare the City Council for this discussion, City staff provides this overview of the history and purpose of the Metro Plan, as well as background material on the two topics highlighted above. This information also provides a broader context and foundation for consideration of future Metro Plan amendments related to the current TransPlan update as well as amendments related to compliance with House Bill 3337. As a reminder, House Bill 3337 requires that Eugene establish a separate Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and complete an updated inventory of residential lands to demonstrate that the comprehensive plan provides sufficient buildable lands within the Eugene UGB to accommodate Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090112\S090112B.DOC estimated housing needs for 20 years. Staff will provide council with updates and opportunities for input on HB 3337 over the next several months. Role of the Metro Plan The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Plan (Metro Plan) serves as the long-range comprehensive plan and establishes the policy framework upon which Eugene, Springfield and Lane County make coordinated land use decisions. The Metro Plan was originally jointly adopted by the three elected bodies in 1972, and has undergone numerous updates, most recently in 2004. As such, each jurisdiction operates under an identical policy framework. The Metro Plan sets forth general planning policies and serves as the basis for coordinated development of various programs concerning growth, development and conservation of resources within the metropolitan area. By jointly adopting the Metro Plan, the three metropolitan area partners recognize the interrelatedness of each others’ growth and transportation decisions. The Metro Plan boundaries include all land within the Eugene-Springfield urban growth boundary (UGB), as well as some additional land situated outside, but adjacent to the UGB (see attached Metro Plan Diagram). Topic 1: Provision of Urban Services The Metro Plan delineates through its policies how services are to be provided within the Metro Plan boundaries. These policies, which focus on land use and development issues, were adopted to ensure efficient delivery of basic services, avoid duplication of government services, and to discourage urbanization outside of the two cities’ UGBs. Briefly summarized, the Metro Plan’s policies create the following framework for managing growth: ? That compact urban growth occur inside the city limits; ? Cities are the logical providers of urban services needed to accommodate urban levels of development within the UGB; ? A city should not annex property if that city can not provide a minimum level of key urban services to that property; ? Existing special districts are an interim method of providing key urban services and will eventually be dissolved inside the UGB. The term “key urban facilities and services” as defined in the Metro Plan refers to the following “minimum level” services that support urban development: wastewater service, stormwater service, transportation, solid waste management, water service, fire and emergency medical services, police protection, citywide parks and recreation programs, electric service, land use controls, communication facilities, and public schools on a district-wide basis. The “full range” of key urban facilities and services also includes urban public transit, natural gas, street lighting, libraries, local parks, local recreation facilities and services, and health services. The Plan recognizes that “a variety of public services are provided by Lane County and special service districts to unincorporated portions of the Eugene- Springfield metropolitan area.” (Growth Management Finding No. 10) The staff memorandum from Lane County suggests that the Metro Plan’s lack of an explicit description of services provided by Lane County is potentially detrimental to future funding options such as the creation of a special taxing district to support the County’s provision of services. In the past, the City Council has broadly indicated support for creating new mechanisms to help pay for basic urban services and geographic-specific Metro Plan policy amendments to permit another jurisdiction to create a localized special district. Previous City Councils have not supported amendments that would Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090112\S090112B.DOC create regional districts or that fundamentally changed Eugene’s methods for providing key urban services to its residents. With the emergence of this regional dialogue requested by the County, this may provide an opportunity for the current City Council to have discussions on these items and ask questions for future decisions. The Metro Plan, which is, by law, a land use document, is not currently well structured to address the rapidly evolving and complex issues of local government financing of urban services. There are likely many options available on how this topic could be approached. Preferred solutions that are not consistent with existing Metro Plan text could be presented in time for the next comprehensive Metro Plan update. Topic 2: Jurisdictional Autonomy The Metro Plan prescribes the basic process for amending the Metro Plan. Depending on the nature of the request, amendments to the Metro Plan can require action by one, two or all three jurisdictions. The two primary types of amendments that are possible are: ? Diagram Amendments: These typically involve amendments to the land use designation for a specific property. The Delta Sand and Gravel request is a recent example, which required action by Lane County and Eugene. ? Text Amendments: These actions typically involve amendments to broad policies affecting a wide spectrum of the Metro Plan area. The recent I-5 bridge project is an example which required action by all three jurisdictions to amend the Metro Plan text. The primary issue identified under this topic is the role of cities in decision-making outside of the urban growth boundary. Under the current provisions, amendments involving property outside the UGB but within the Metro Plan boundaries require action by Lane County as well as the adjacent city (Eugene or Springfield). The policy question framed by the County for discussion at the JEO meeting is whether changes should be made to provide greater autonomy to Lane County, specifically in decision-making outside of the city’s UGB. The staff memorandum from Lane County suggests the following two possible means to provide the County with greater autonomy in that geographic area: 1)Amend the Metro Plan boundaries to be co-terminus with the UGB. The intended result of this proposal would be that land use decisions outside, but adjacent to the UGB, would no longer be governed by the Metro Plan and therefore, would be under the sole jurisdiction of Lane County. This change would also require text changes to the Metro Plan and the cities’ and county’s land use codes. The County’s memorandum suggests that this task could be accomplished as a part of the cities’ comprehensive land assessment efforts being undertaken in response to HB 3337. The full impacts of this option have not been fully analyzed, but several potential issues have been identified for preliminary consideration: ? HB 3337 analysis of land supply should be completed prior to consideration of boundary changes; ? HB 3337 scope of work establishes separate UGBs for Springfield and Eugene, but does not necessarily require an amendment to the Metro Plan boundaries. ? While timing of the amendments would need to be considered, “bundling” of Metro Plan amendments is a process efficiency strategy that should be considered whenever feasible. Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090112\S090112B.DOC 2) Amend the Consensus-driven conflict resolution bylaws of the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). This change would also require text changes to the cities’ and county’s land use codes. Although the question of jurisdictional autonomy has been focused on the question of City involvement in land use decisions outside of the UGB but within the Metro Plan boundaries, there are other circumstances prescribed in the Metro Plan that govern multi-jurisdictional decision making. For example, amendments affecting property within a UGB, but not annexed to a city, require action by the affected city and Lane County. The JEO agenda materials focus on specific options related to County articulated issues with the Metro Plan. The JEO meeting is also an opportunity for the council to engage in a broader discussion of problem definition, and identification of a range of solutions that address specific issues, such as funding strategies for public services. Depending on the scope and nature of the discussion at the JEO meeting, there are likely to be many options available on how to address these and other topics. Following the policy discussion, staff can prepare additional details that are more responsive to specific council direction. RELATED CITY POLICIES “A special review, and if appropriate, Metro Plan amendment, shall be initiated if changes in the basic assumptions of the Metro Plan occur…..” (Policy 1, Chapter IV of the Metro Plan) COUNCIL OPTIONS This item is intended for discussion only. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION No recommendation is provided as this item is intended for discussion only. SUGGESTED MOTION No motion is suggested as this item is intended for discussion only. ATTACHMENTS A.Metro Plan Map FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lisa Gardner Telephone: 541/682-5208 Staff E-Mail: lisa.a.gardner@ci.eugene.or.us Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090112\S090112B.DOC