HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1: Key Urban Services/Jurisdictional Authority
Agenda Item Summary
______________________________________________
To:
Joint Elected Officials
From:
Jamon Kent, LCOG
Date:
March 3, 2009
Background:
th
As a result of the Mayors/County Commissioners meeting held February 10, the
rd
agenda for the March 3 Joint Elected Officials meeting will include two items:
Metro Plan Overview and the Formation of an Economic Development Response
Team. In addition, a decision was made to postpone meetings of the Metro Plan
rd
JEO Subcommittee until after the March 3 JEO meeting.
Metro Plan Overview
rd
At the March 3 JEO meeting, planning directors from each jurisdiction will
present an overview of the Metro Plan to provide the factual basis on which to
begin a high level discussion that may set the stage for future meetings with Metro
Plan partners.
In preparation for this meeting the following documents are included for your
review:
?
History of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
Narrative
?
Planning History Graphic
?
Summary of Key Ideas Regarding the Metro Plan (the result of a series of
meetings with City Councilors from Eugene, Springfield and the Board
of County Commissioners and Consultant Betsy Shepard in 2007).
Subcommittee Formation
The City Managers from Eugene and Springfield along with the Lane County
Administrator support the formation of a JEO Economic Response Team. It is
recommended that the committee be charged with answering three key questions
and report back to the JEO at a future meeting. The three questions are: (1) What
can be done to address the community as a whole? (2) What can be done to protect
current businesses in our region? and (3) What does the future of economic
development look like for our region?
The purpose of the subcommittee is to review these questions and provide
plausible answers to each and to provide leadership in the development of an
Economic Summit in cooperation with other agencies who have similar interests.
Currently there are several private and governmental groups with similar economic
development concerns. It is suggested that the subcommittee engage these groups
in the dialogue. Groups such as the Lane Metro Partnership, the Chambers of
Eugene and Springfield, the Lane Economic Committee, and the University of
Oregon, to name a few.
The vitality of our area is dependent upon our economy, and the members of this
subcommittee can be instrumental in providing not only a path to future economic
development but maintaining the development we have in our region.
ATTACHMENT A
AGENDA COVER MEMO
DATE: February 25, 2009
March 3, 2009 JEO Meeting Date
TO: JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS OF EUGENE, SPRINGFIELD AND
LANE COUNTY
FROM : KENT HOWE, LANE COUNTY PLANNING DIRECTOR
LISA GARDNER, EUGENE PLANNING DIRECTOR
GREG MOTT, SPRINGFIELD PLANNING DIRECTOR
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:
History of The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
General Plan
I. ISSUE
The JEO has requested a work session on the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
(Metro Plan).
II. DISCUSSION
A. BACKGROUND
This memorandum provides a brief history of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
General Plan (Metro Plan), illustrates its function and demonstrates how the Metro Plan has
served the metropolitan area land use planning partners. The information is intended to
provide the Joint Elected Officials with a factual basis on which to begin a high level
discussion that may set the stage for future meetings with the Metro Plan partners.
The cities are responsible for the planning and development of the lands within the City
Limits. Each city shares responsibility with Lane County for developing the land use policy
that governs the areas outside the City Limits. The area of overlapping jurisdiction is the
“edge” or fringe area outside the City Limits and inside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
Citizens in the unincorporated areas are represented by the Board of Commissioners, not the
City Council. The county delegated its administrative authority for processing planning and
building permits to each of the two cities, respectively, within the UGB upon the adoption and
signing of the Urban Transition Agreements (UTAs) in 1986-87. The UTAs limited Lane
County’s administrative responsibility for planning and building permit processing to the area
outside the UGB. However, just as the cities are responsible for approving the urban
development within their city limits, the County retains its role and responsibility in joint
1
Metro Plan policy development for the “edge” or fringe area outside the City Limits, inside
the UGB.
There are several questions that periodically arise during policy discussions and are likely to
continue to do so in the future:
1.What is urban and what is rural?
2.Where is urban and rural growth going to occur?
3.Who is going to control urban growth?
4.What are urban level services?
5.Who is going to provide urban level services?
6.How does the community function as a region?
7.Now that the region has completed the state-driven Periodic Review, what local planning
efforts and improvements should the region undertake?
8.How are the Metro jurisdictions going to implement the changes for HB 3337?
9. How are government services going to be funded?
Please think about these questions as you consider the background information presented, below.
B. HISTORY
Cities and Counties are governmental and geographic entities that function as subdivisions of
the State. They operate under the Constitution, Statutes, and other laws of Oregon. They are
both "general purpose" governments empowered with broad authorities to provide services
and finance them. Local “home rule” options grant them even greater local powers through
their charters. There are also key differences between cities and counties; often in terms of
history, function, politics, and outlook. Historically, cities were seats of government, religion,
defense, and trade. They were compact places where people gathered for economic and social
reasons. Counties act more like an arm of state government functioning at a more local level
(courts, police, jails, tax collection, roads, deed and survey records, and election recorder).
Rural was rural - people made a living off the land. A trip to town was carefully planned, and
sometimes an ordeal. A lot of land around cities was used for crops and livestock to meet the
needs of city citizens (food and clothing), and hay to power horses and feed livestock. The
automobile changed things. The depression and World War II delayed the impact of autos on
our landscape. Post WWII saw a suburban explosion. This post war growth was responding
to pent up demand in achieving the "American Dream": Live and work where you want; Have
a car in every garage; Own your own home with a lawn. Eugene and Springfield provided
urban services inside the city limits and special districts formed on the urban fringe.
By 1956, the Bureau of Municipal Research and Service published a series of reports on the
major urban areas in Oregon, "Problems on the Eugene-Springfield Urban Fringe". This
report addressed growing concerns about suburban sprawl, proliferation of special service
districts, and the impacts that resulted from widening gaps in tax rates and service delivery
2
levels. These concerns accelerated in the 1950’s and 1960’s as growth continued outside city
limits in Bethel, River Road, Santa Clara, North Springfield, Thurston, and Douglas Gardens.
Problems of sprawl, leapfrog development, loss of farmland, rapid development during a
period of economic recovery, construction of interstate freeways, unequal level of services,
fragmentation of government, and unequal taxation were the fodder for our modern land use
planning program.
C. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION
The late 1970’s and early 1980's was an era of unprecedented intergovernmental cooperation.
The Transportation (T-2000) Plan was adopted, the Eugene/Springfield Metro Plan was
adopted with the formation of the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) for policy direction
and dispute resolution, and the Wastewater Plan was adopted - leading to formation of the
MWMC, regionalization of wastewater treatment, and passage of a local bond to fund the
local 25% share of the converted plant and major lines necessary to convey Springfield
wastewater to the new regional plant.
Following those early successes and the deep recession of the late 70's and early 80's, an
intergovernmental review of urban service delivery was undertaken. The review was
motivated by Commissioner Peter DeFazio. Commissioner John Ball chaired the study that
led to intergovernmental agreements including the transfer of roads to cities upon annexation
and development of county road fund sharing formulas, the transfer of county administration
of planning and building permitting to cities, and the transfer of urban county parks to Eugene
and Springfield (for Willamalane).
D. CURRENT REALITIES
The second Periodic Review of the Metro Plan is now complete, we are in the midst of a
severe recession and the metropolitan area is dealing with the prospects of the region’s
population doubling during the next 50 years. If the area doesn’t want to replicate what many
view as mistakes in other highly developed areas, densities must increase, redevelopment must
occur while livability is maintained and there must be an orderly and efficient provision for the
necessary public services.
Currently, intergovernmental cooperation is needed as hospitals expand and relocate to
address the growing health needs of the region. Schools are consolidating, rebuilding and
relocating to meet the changing demographics. Transportation facilities are being designed
for the future transportation needs. Destination recreational facilities are being expanded
while new ones are being planned. The Metro Plan partners struggle to find ways to finance
the many increasing demands placed on government as the region grows.
As cities grow, they inherit the fringe from the county - and a new fringe is formed - and with
cars, the fringe influence expands further outward. The land division and settlement patterns
3
greatly influence future growth, infrastructure, and density issues. Small rural communities
struggle to survive. Technology is constantly changing and presenting a new wave of issues
for the future in terms of shopping, entertaining, working, and commuting.
E. ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE EUGENE/SPRINGFIELD METRO PLAN
The Metro Plan has logically developed in certain ways that have resulted in a number of
significant accomplishments:
1.It was the cornerstone of LCDC acknowledgment - greater certainty and local control was
returned to the region.
2.It treated the urban area as a region - common waters, airshed, transportation links, transit
system, scenic assets, and recognized common interests in the housing market, jobs,
commuting for workers, shopping opportunities, social interactions, cooperative government
services, and higher education.
3.It contained general goals and objectives - and policies that covered gaps in local master
planning.
4.It allowed each jurisdiction to develop more detailed goals and policies (Like Eugene’s
Community Goals and Springfield’s ‘Project Listen’ and Springfield Tomorrow). It allowed
each City and Lane County to construct their individual zoning and ordinances (within the
general goals and policies of the Metro Plan).
5.It continued the basis for the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) and regular coordination
meetings of the Metro Planning Directors.
6.It established stability that made it possible for progress in servicing River Road and Santa
Clara with needed sewers, bringing fire protection to Douglas Gardens and parts of South
Springfield, and developing plans for Glenwood.
7.It set the stage for the urban transition study - and the decision of the County to concentrate
its planning administration on rural Lane County and to get out of the more intensive
administrative urban planning and building permit business (the County did not directly
provide water or sewers - two major growth-controlling urban services).
8.It allowed for private development that has been successful in creating housing and economic
development during the past 27 years and that has made the Eugene/Springfield Metro area
the second largest economic engine in Oregon.
The Metro Plan is viewed in its original form as a general plan within which the individual
governments could control more local, refined planning to suit their unique situations,
attitudes, and politics.
The Metro Plan has been viewed at times as a source of pride and accomplishment because it
expressed our community's direction and met the statewide framework, and it reflected our
cooperative approach. It embodied the spirit of a community unlike most others, where we
found more in common and worked out our differences through thoughtful negotiations. The
Metro Plan also allowed the partners to be different. The Metro Plan reflected a spirit as
much as a substance about colors or lines on a map, or a specific policy.
4
The Metro Plan was successful in setting the stage for many public and private developments
in this area over the past 27 years. The regional wastewater plant, an improved airport, a
transit system and conservation of agricultural and forest land. The Metro Plan also facilitated
the Gateway Mall, fire service by Willakenzie in South Springfield, precluded a new city in
Santa Clara, and led to development of new higher tech industrial parks that had been the
center of controversy in the late 1970's. It took us into a new century.
G. CURRENT CHALLENGES
When the Metro Plan was first adopted the population within the UGB was approximately
184,000 (1977). During the last 30 years, the population within the Metro UGB has grown
approximately 48,000 to 232,000. Twenty-five years from now, the most recently prepared
population projection (2005) for the Metro UGB population is 314,000, an increase of 82,000
by the year 2030.
The Metro Plan partners have finished Periodic Review (2004), but we are now subject to
another state-mandated process: Implementation of HB 3337. HB3337 requires Eugene and
Springfield to evaluate their respective buildable lands inventories for a new 20-year planning
period and, based on that evaluation, establish separate urban growth boundaries. The effect
of this action will be the creation of “refinement plans” of the Metro Plan for Eugene and
Springfield that will [likely] eliminate a number of existing plan provisions that are based on
the presence of a metro-wide land use inventory and a single metropolitan urban growth
boundary. The implementation of HB 3337 provides a timely opportunity to assess the
continuing effectiveness of many of the assumptions that have guided metropolitan planning,
growth and development for the past 50 years. Many of these assumptions have been the
subject of past joint elected officials’ discussions stretching back to the mid-1990’s while
more recent discussions have revealed a new set of challenges. Staff is requesting direction
from the elected officials regarding a strategy to resolve these issues including whether this
effort should be coordinated with the ongoing work to implement HB 3337.
The challenge is planning for future generations in a meaningful way and providing for stable
st
government services within the financial constraints of the 21 Century in the aftermath of
Measures 5, 47, and 50.
Eugene/Springfield Metro Plan Issues
1.Plan Architecture/Structure – 1 Metro Plan or Separate Plans?
2.Urbanizable Land (inside UGB, outside City Limits) Administration to and
Representation of citizens inside UGB, outside City Limits.
3.Statutory Coordination Role - LCOG or Lane County?
4.Fundamental Principles.
5. Compact Urban Growth.
6. Rural Reserves / Urban Reserves.
5
7. Funding of services under Measures 5, 47/50.
8. Metro Plan definition of urban services and logical providers of those services?
9. Metro Plan area outside UGB.
10. Metro Plan/refinement plan amendment procedures.
11. Regional impacts – County/other City roles inside City Limits
12. Implementation of HB 3337, Inventory Development
a.Residential, Commercial and Industrial land.
b.Population Forecasts.
13. Role of MPC – Policy Development and Dispute Resolution.
14. Effects of Ballot Measures 37/49.
6
OREGON PLANNING HISTORY – HIGHLIGHTS
Pre-World War II:
1895first special service district law enacted (rural agricultural development district).
1906 Oregon cities gain home rule authority.
1915 water district enabling legislation enacted.
1918 City of Portland adopts Oregon’s first zoning.
1919 City zoning enabling legislation enacted.
1935 fire district enabling legislation enacted.
1930-1945 Depression and World War II.
Post World War II:
1947 first county planning enabling legislation.
1958 Oregon counties home rule enabling legislation.
1969 Senate Bill 10 enacted (first comprehensive planning legislation).
1973 Senate Bill 100 enacted & Land Conservation and Development Commission formed.
1974-76 LCDC adopts statewide planning goals.
c. 1986 all 276 local comprehensive plans in Oregon “acknowledged” by LCDC.
1990 Ballot Measure 5 passes, property tax capped at $15/$1000 of assessed value
excluding bonds: $10 for general government and $5 for schools.
1996 Ballot Measure 47 passes.
1997 As a result of legislative action and voter approval Ballot Measure 50 supersedes
Ballot Measure 47. This measure rolled assessed values back by 17% and capped
growth at 3% annually.
2000 Ballot Measure 7 passes and requires compensation for restrictive land use
regulations. (Measure found invalid by the courts).
2004 Ballot Measure 37 passes and requires compensation or “waiver” of restrictive land
use regulations for valid claims.
2007 Ballot Measure 49 passes, supersedes M37 and creates new provisions relating to
compensation for loss of value of private real property resulting from land use
regulations.
HB3337 passes requiring a division of the Eugene/Springfield UGB
2009 Most local plans are now over 20 years old.
7
ATTACHMENT C
“Little Look” Focus Group Summary of Key Ideas Regarding the Metro Plan
The following are the key ideas that emerged from the “Little Look” Metro Plan focus
group survey conducted with the Lane County, Springfield and Eugene elected officials in
2007. These areas of agreement have relevancy for the JEO Work Group as they move
forward:
?
It is important to continue to meet collaboratively and to have productive
conversations about land use planning issues.
?
Jurisdictions must focus on the benefits of collaborative land use planning, not just
the burdens.
?
There are benefits for the region by providing some collaborative opportunities to
explore the complexities of land use planning.
?
A collaborative review should support citizens, elected officials and the regional
needs.
?
The principle of collaboration that is central to the Metro Plan is still desirable in
most areas.
?
The Metro Plan is a long-range policy document that provides a framework for more
detailed refinement plans.
?
The Metro Plan should be reviewed collaboratively, as parts of it seem outdated or
too restrictive.
?
The Metro Plan is less relevant today and could warrant some further collaborative
review.
?
The Metro Plan could better meet the current and future needs in the areas of
housing, buildable lands and UGB’s.
?
A balanced, fair, coordinated and comprehensive land use planning system is
desirable.
?
Collaborative planning and dialogue can improve trust, communication and develop
stronger relationships.
?
Eugene and Springfield are the logical providers of services accommodating urban
levels of development within the UGB.
?
Decisions regarding land use planning should be based on knowledge and clear
information.
?
State and local governments must continue to balance the common good and local
needs.
?
All stakeholders should be able to have healthy discussions together, even when there
are differing opinions.
?
Citizen involvement is vital to the land use process.
?
Land use planning and economic planning should go hand in hand.
LCOG: L:\CITY COUNTY PLANNING\METRO\LITTLE LOOK\LITTLE LOOK BULLETS #2 EDITED.DOC Last Saved: February 24, 2009