HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4: PH on Ordinance Adopting PROS Comprehensive Plan
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Public Hearing: An Ordinance Adopting a New Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan
(“PROS Comprehensive Plan”) as a Refinement of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan
Area General Plan; Repealing Resolution No. 4127 and the Eugene Parks and Recreation
Plan Adopted Therein; Amending Section 9.8010 of the Eugene Code, 1971;
Repealing Section 9.9550 of that Code; Adopting a Severability Clause; and
Providing an Effective Date
Meeting Date: December 12, 2005 Agenda Item Number: 4
Department: Public Works Staff Contact: Carolyn Weiss
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-4914
ISSUE STATEMENT
The purpose of this public hearing is to provide an opportunity for public input regarding the proposed
ordinance which adopts the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Comprehensive Plan, repeals the
1989 Parks and Recreation Plan and repeals section 9.9550 of the Eugene Code, 1971. The council is
scheduled to take action on this item on January 9, 2006.
BACKGROUND
The PROS Comprehensive Plan provides concepts, principles, goals and strategies to guide preservation
and enhancement of Eugene’s Parks, Recreation and Open Space system. The PROS Comprehensive
Plan is organized into six chapters, which include: the planning framework; key recommendations that
will guide Plan implementation; strategies for how the City will achieve its vision; potential financing
sources for capital and non-capital projects, as well as sources for maintenance; and, measures to
evaluate the success of plan implementation.
On November 8, 2005, the Planning Commission passed a motion recommending that the council
approve the PROS Comprehensive Plan with seven amendments. Six of the seven Planning
Commission’s recommended amendments are reflected in the PROS Comprehensive Plan that has been
provided to the council. A page citation of the location of these incorporated amendments is attached to
this AIS as Attachment A.
A City Council work session on the proposed ordinance was held on November 28, 2005. Attachment B
to this AIS is a memorandum that responds to questions raised by councilors at the work session
regarding whether the PROS Comprehensive plan should be adopted as a refinement to the Metro Plan,
the legal implications of adopting the PROS Comprehensive Plan as something other than a refinement
to the Metro Plan, and questions regarding the consequences of deleting policies from the 1989 Parks
and Recreation Plan currently listed in the Land Use Code.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M051212\S0512124.doc
Questions were raised by the council at the work wession regarding the relationship of the PROS
Comprehensive Plan to the Parks System Development Charge (SDC) review. The PROS
comprehensive planning process has resulted in the development of two documents: a PROS
Comprehensive Plan document and a PROS Project and Priority Plan. The PROS Project and Priority
Plan is proposed for adoption by City Council resolution separate from the adoption of PROS
Comprehensive Plan (which is being adopted by ordinance and as a refinement to the Metro Plan). The
Project and Priority Plan is the document most relevant to the SDC review, in that it identifies capital
project costs which the parks SDC methodology under review must consider.
The requirement that the City consider the costs of projects in an adopted plan when modifying SDCs or
adopting new SDCs arises from Oregon Revised Statutes. ORS 223.304(2)(a) provides, in part, that
SDC improvement fees must be established or modified by ordinance or resolution setting forth a
methodology that demonstrates consideration of the projected cost of capital improvements identified in
an adopted plan. This plan must meet certain criteria specified in ORS 223.309, including the
requirement that the plan include a list of the capital improvements that the local government intends to
fund, in whole or in part, with revenues from an improvement fee and the estimated cost, timing and
percentage of costs eligible to be funded with revenues from the improvement fee for each
improvement. The Project and Priority Plan will satisfy these statutory requirements.
The Project and Priority Plan itself does not prescribe the form of the SDC methodology nor the amount
of the SDC; rather it is a reference document that will be considered in the development of the SDC.
The SDC methodology may consider the Project and Priority Plan using a variety of means and may
include all, or a portion of the SDC-eligible project costs contained in the list. For example, the council
as a matter of policy in adopting the SDC methodology, may choose to utilize a subset of the projects in
the Project and Priority Plan as the basis for the SDC. These policy issues will be considered through
adoption of a modified parks SDC, subsequent to the separate adoptions of the PROS Comprehensive
Plan and the Project and Priority Plan.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
The PROS Comprehensive Plan will replace the Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan, which was adopted
by the City Council in 1989 as a refinement to the Metro Plan.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The council is asked to hold a public hearing on the proposed adoption of the Parks, Recreation, and
Open Space (PROS) Comprehensive Plan. The council will be asked to adopt the PROS
Comprehensive Plan on January 9, 2006.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
None; this is a public hearing only.
SUGGESTED MOTION
None; this is a public hearing only.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M051212\S0512124.doc
ATTACHMENTS
A. Page citation of Planning Commission’s incorporated amendments
B. Response to City Council Questions asked at the 11/28/05 Work Session
Note: For additional background information, notebooks containing the minutes of the Parks and Open
Space Mayor’s Advisory Committee, along with other informational documents, are available for review
at the City Manager’s Office.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Carolyn Weiss, Parks and Open Space Planning Manager
Telephone: 682-4914
Staff E-Mail: carolyn.j.weiss@ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M051212\S0512124.doc
ATTACHMENT A
The following reflects changes made to the PROS Comprehensive Plan between the
September 2005 draft and the revised November 2005 draft.
Changes are based on recommendations from the Eugene Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Recommendation #1 and #2. Chapter I, Section B, Pages 2-3.
Formerly:
This plan is not intended to have any regulatory effect for land located outside City
limits.
Successful Park and Recreation networks call for many different types of outdoor
environments, including the need for some types of natural areas that may not be found as
readily within an urban area. For this reason, several opportunities exist for the City and
County to partner in an effort to obtain the best outdoor experience for all stakeholders.
Revised to:
When identifying parcels for park acquisition, the preference is on obtaining properties
that are in close proximity to residents, and therefore within Eugene’s UGB. However,
there are some instances when it may become necessary to look outside of the UGB. For
example, it is a goal of the PROS Comprehensive Plan to provide a variety of outdoor
experiences for Eugene residents, including the rural, natural qualities that one
encounters in the Ridgeline Park system. Additionally, there may be times when the type
and size of parcels which are sought to provide specific park services are not available
within the UGB because of previous development. For these reasons, several
opportunities exist for the City and County to partner in an effort to obtain the best
outdoor experience for all stakeholders.
Adoption of the PROS Comprehensive Plan does not amount to the City exercising any
governmental authority outside of the UGB or outside of the City’s limits. The PROS
Comprehensive Plan does not have any legal or regulatory effect on land located outside
City limits. It is a strategy/planning document that is intended as a guide for the City as it
moves forward to meet the recreational and park needs of the City’s residents. Staff will
rely on voluntary participation of property owners when acquiring land or purchasing
conservation easements. A key objective of the plan is to devise strategies that will not
infringe upon the rights of property owners and will stress voluntary participation. Most
park and open space protection programs rely on responsible negotiations with willing
sellers based on appraisals of fair market value to benefit the public’s and owners’
interests. This does not preclude the City Council from exercising its condemnation
powers within the city limits.
Attachment A to 12/12/05 AIS 1
Planning Commission Recommendation #4. Chapter I, Section C, Pages 5-6.
Formerly:
The City of Eugene provides the majority of parks, facilities, and programs within this
planning area. However, city residents also benefit from parks and facilities owned or
managed by other public agencies within the region. A variety of amenities, trails and
recreation facilities are contributed by these organizations:
?(bullet list)
Revised to:
Parks, Open Space and Facility Inventory
A key component to the Community Needs Assessment involved a thorough inventory of
existing parks, open space, and facilities. This inventory is included in Appendix B.
The City of Eugene provides the majority of parks, facilities, and programs within the
planning area. However, city residents also benefit from parks and facilities owned or
managed by other public agencies within the region. A variety of amenities, trails, and
recreation facilities are contributed by these organizations:
University of Oregon (UO)
?
Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB)
?
Lane County Parks
?
Lane County Fairgrounds
?
River Road Park and Recreation District (RRPRD)
?
Eugene School District 4J
?
Bethel School District 52
?
Willamalane Park & Recreation District
?
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
?
There are numerous agencies and private entities, such as golf courses and fitness clubs,
which provide recreation opportunities to Eugene residents. Although these providers are
part of a system which contributes to the parks, recreation and open space services of the
area, only lands which are actually owned by the City of Eugene are included in the
PROS Comprehensive Plan inventory. However, many of these lands not owned by the
city are identified on the accompanying resource maps.
The City owns and manages multiple facilities which are located on school district
properties. These facilities include athletic fields, children’s play areas, skateparks, and
tennis courts. These facilities are counted in the inventory of existing park and recreation
facilities. However, the land which they are constructed on is not owned by the City of
Eugene, and is therefore not included in the inventory.
Planning Commission Recommendation #6 and #7. Chapter 4, Section I, Pages 53-
54.
Added:
Attachment A to 12/12/05 AIS 2
I-15. Recognize the need to balance the adoption of new planning documents with the
adopted Growth Management Goals and the cumulative effect that existing
planning documents may have on the City’s ability to fulfill the Growth
Management Goals. The PROS Comprehensive Plan does not have an impact on
the buildable land inventories. However, future acquisition of additional park
land may have an impact on the inventories.
Planning Commission Recommendation #5. Chapter 4, Following Page 58.
Added:
Graphic Map depicting Existing and Needed Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Resources.
Attachment A to 12/12/05 AIS 3
ATTACHMENTB
CITY OF EUGENE
INTEU.-}lEPAR'I'lVIENTAL MEMORANDUM
CITY ATTORNEY - CIVIL HEl> ARTMENT
To:
Mayor and City Council
Date: Oecember 6, 2005
Subject:
Adoption of the I)arks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan
.At the November 28, 2005, City Conncil Work Session our office was asked to provide
Council with a mernorandum addressing the following issues: (1) the legal significance ofthe policies
set forth in the 1989 Eugene Parks and Recr(.~tion Plan and the consequences of repealing those
policies and replacing thcm with nothing or replacing them with the "strategies" contained in the
Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Comprehensive Plan; (2) whether the PROS
Comprehensive Plan needs to he adopted as a refinement to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
General Plan (Metro Plan) and the consequences of the City adopting the PROS Comprehensive Plan
as something other than a refinement plan; and, (3) the process the City must follow if it decides to
adopt the PROS Comprehensive Plan as something other than a refinement to the Metro Plan. We
address each of these issues helow and set out some options for the Council to consider based on our
discussion herein.
J. 1989 Eugene Parks and Recrc~ltion Plan
The 1989 Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan (1989 Plan) consists of findings, policies and
goals and is divided into roughly live sections: (1) General Goals and Policies; (2) Communitywidc
Resources, Policies and Proposed Actions; (3) Planning District Proposed Actions; (4) History of the
Eugene Park System; and, (5) Park Inventory by Planning District.
By resolution, Council adopted the 1989 Plan as a refinement to the Metro Plan, stating that the
Plan "provides further policy refinement and implementation of and is consistent with the Metropolitan
Plan policies which regulate land use decisions or processes. . .." The resolution provided that
Council adopted, as polices to be used in making land use decisions, "those policies of the Parks and
Recreation Plan which directly implement polices of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
General Plan regulating the development and llse of land." Council adopted as guidelines the other
polices and goals of thc 1989 Plan that llecd to he "considered in making administrative and budgetary
decisions about parks and recreation acquisitions, development and management." Lastly, Council
adopted the proposed actions as a "list of public facility project and program opportunities and m-c not
intended to be the exclusive means of implementing Parks and recreation policies and goals."
As part of the land use code update process, the City incorporated some of its adopted
refinement plan polices into Chapter 9 to be used in evaluating applicahle adopted plan policies
pertaining to subdivisions, partitions and site review. The 1989 Plan policies that were added to
Chapter 9 are set fOlth at EC 9.9550. Not uU of the policies contained in the 1989 Plan were added to
Chapter 9.
Although they arc now in the code, due to their nature, the 1989 Plan polices incorporated in
BC 9.9550 have no practical effect on suhdivision, partitions or site review applications for a number
Attachment B
lY1a vor ami Ci t y GOUll ciL___ ~~__u_m~____u_~_-,QS~~',9J11bSli?_'u2 OO:L__uu___.__uu_u~_u_.__u_~____uu~__
Page 2
..____uu_....Q___~
of reasons_ First, many or the adopted policies apply only to City actions and have no impact on land
use applicants. For exarnp1e, tbe Delta Ponds policy ("Develop tbe Delta Ponds as a major recreational
area and corridor including a variety of recreational and educational opportunities.") is direction to the
City regarding the development of the Delta Ponds area. Second, the adopted policies that could
impose a requircrnent on a land use applicant are already covered by specific land use application
requirements. For example, the policy requiring pedestrian acce,,,;s to acljacent parks (EC 9.9550( l)(c))
is covered by EC 9.6835(1) which requires that "the city shall require within the development site the
dedication to the public and improvement of accessways for pedestrian and bicyclist use to connect the
development site to adjacent cul-de-sacs or to an adjacent site that is undeveloped, publicly owned, or
developed with an accessway that connects to the subject site. . .." In fact, staffs decision to delete
the Chapter 9 policies without replacement policies was based largely on the conclusion that the 1989
policies were already addressed in the existing Chapter 9 regulation and deleting the policies
ehrninated the current redundancy.
Because the 1989 Plan policies have no practical effect on subdivision, pariition or site review
applications, repealing the policies that were incorporated into Chapter I) wiB not have practical effect
on the City's processing of those types of land lJse applications.
2. The })ROS Comprehensive Plan as a Refinement Piau
As explained at the November 28,2005, Council work session, in order to repeal the 1989 Plan,
the City needed to follow the BC Chapter I) Type V land use process, the same process required for
refinement plan adoption. The guiding reason behind the City's decision to adopt the PROS
Comprehensive Plan as a refinement plan is the fact that it replaces the 1989 Plan, which was adopted
as a refinement plan. Based on our review of state law and tbe Metro Plan, we conclude that, as tbe
law exists today" the City's local parks plan need not be adopted as a refinement to the Metro Plan.
The City could repeal the 1989 Plan and then adopt the PROS Comprehensive Plan as a
standalone document, that is, not as a refInement to the Metro Plan. Due to the aspirational nature of
the PROS Comprehensive Plan, adopting the Plan ~IS something other than a retlnement to the Metro
Plan does not have any foreseeable consequences. The PROS Comprehensive Plan does not contain
any legal requirements on land division applicants.
Regarding the strategies contained in the PROS Comprehensive Plan, the strategies arc
aspirationaJ and not binding on anyone but the City. To the extent any of the strategies implicate
private development, City staff have determined that the strategies, like many of the 1989 Plan
policies, are already covered by existing Chapter 9 code provisions. Thus, even though the strategies
in the PROS Comprehensive Plan have no independent legal weight OIl anyone but the City, such an
absence of legal weight will not impact the current land lIse regulations applicable to applicants as
those regulations relate to the City's park and open space system.
3. Process for Adopting the PROS Comprehensive Plan as Something Other than a
Refinement to tbe Metro Plan
Even though the PROS Comprehensive Plan need not be adopted as a refinement to the MetTo
Plan, because the PROS Comprehensive Plan will serve as part of this area's parks and recreation plan
under Goal 8, we believe that the City should follow the Type V land lIse adoption process to adopt the
Attachment 13
iyl;tY9LQIld Ci1Y COlllli'11-_____.__._.___.h._D~~mJ?~[ 6.2005
._...___.m__.m..___.m...f::lgc; .:"l
PR OS Comprehensive Plan. Goal 8 provides: "To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the
state and visitors and, where appropriate, to pwvide fOf the siting of necessary recreational facilities
including destination resorts." Further, OAR 660-034-0000 to 660~034-0040, the administrative rules
that implement Goal 8, specifically provide for (hut do not require) the adoption of local park master
plans by local park providers. Based on these provisions, and because the PROS Comprehensive Plan
will serve as part of this area's master park and recreation plan, we believe that the City should adopt
the plan consistent with land use decision adoption procedures. 1
Since the PROS Comprehensive Plan is currently proposed as a refinement to the Metro Plan,
the City has already been fbHowing the land use process. The adoption process for a land use decision
is the same regardless of whether the City is adopt.ing a refinement to the Metro Plan or something
other than a refinement plan. As such, without providing further process, Council could change course
to adopt the PROS Comprehensive Plan as a standalone land use regulation instead of a refinement
plan. We believe that the clearest way to do so would be to split the proposed ordinance into two
separate actions: 1) adopt an ordinance repealing the 1989 Plan and repealing the corresponding
Chapter 9 code provisions; and, 2) adopt the PROS Comprehensive Plan.
4. Council Options
Based on the above-analysis, Council has the thHowing options:
A. Repeal the 1989 Plan :md take no action regarding the PROS Comprehensive Plan.
B. Repeal the 1989 Plan and replace it with the PROS Comprehensive Plan as a refinement
to the Metro Plan.
C Repeal the 1989 Plan and separately adopt (via motion or resolution) the PROS
Comprehensive Plan as a stand alone intemal document, i.e., not as a refinement to the
Mctro Plan.
D. Take no action, i.e, leave in place the 1989 Plan.
HARRANG LONG GARY RUDNICK P.c. -
CITY ATTORNEYS
fi.~Jjl~~
I ORS 197.0 f 5( 1O)(a) defines I;md llse decisioll, in part, as "a final decisjon or determination by a local government or
special district that concerns the adoption, amendment or application of: (i) The goals; (ii) A comprehensive plan provision;
(Hi) A land use regulation; or (iv) A new land use regulation. . . ."
Attachment B