Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1: Metro Subcommittee Report JEO OINT LECTED FFICIALS AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Metro Plan Questions Meeting Date: June 1, 2009 Agenda Item Number: 1 Contact: Jon Ruiz, Gino Grimaldi, Jeff Spartz ISSUE STATEMENT The Joint Elected Officials (JEO) formed a subcommittee to review two of the five issues raised by the County Commissioners relative to the Metro Plan. The Subcommittee has met three times with facilitator Betsy Shepard and staff from each jurisdiction. As the committee reviewed the two issues it became clear that there were many issues associated with the Metro Plan and some of the issues were not part of the Metro Plan. The Subcommittee then decided to consider options to change or eliminate the Metro Plan. Staff th provided requested materials and at the last committee meeting on May 27 the subcommittee reached consensus on a recommendation for the JEO. County Commissioner Faye Stewart will present the Subcommittee’s recommendation, share the Subcommittees process and documentation used to reach the recommendation. JEO OPTIONS Option 1: Approve the Subcommittee’s recommendation. Option 2: Modify the Subcommitte’s the committee’s recommendation. Options 3: Decline approval of the recommendation and provide new directions for the Metro Subcommittee. JEO METRO SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The JEO Metro Subcommittee recommends option one, which will start the process for revising the Metro Plan by developing a work plan, timeline, cost estimate and implications for specific changes to the Metro Plan based on recommendations from each jurisdiction. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to 1) approve the the Subcommittee’s recommendation and begin the process to revise the Metro Plan. ATTACHMENTS A. Metro Subcommittee Goals B. Meeting Minutes Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090601\S0906011.doc C. Dot Voting Results D. Current Metro Plan – Related Requirements and Issues E. Metro Plan Options F. Revised Metro Plan Structure G. Potential Metro Plan Revisions by Chapter H. Subcommittee Recommendation FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Jon Ruiz Telephone: 682-5336 Staff E-Mail: jon.r.ruiz@ci.eugene.or.us Staff Contact: Gino Grimaldi Telephone: 726-3700 Staff E-Mail: ggrimaldi@ci.springfield.or.us Staff Contact: Jeff Spartz Telephone: 682-4207 Staff E-Mail: jeff.spartz@co.lane.or.us Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090601\S0906011.doc Goals for the Metro Subcommittee May 7, 2009 ? Keep the focus on land use planning issues, using a collaborative process (direct other issues that emerge to the full JEO group and/or staff for future conversations) ? Review and understand the county’s issues in the context of the larger Metro Plan picture ? Explore and understand the options of keeping or doing away with the Metro Plan (and the implications of HB 3337 on these options) ? Develop any policy questions or implications for both Metro Plan scenarios ? Clearly articulate the subcommittee findings and/or recommendations to the full JEO group on June 1, 2009 LCOG: H:\Templates\WordXP\Normal.dot Last Saved: Friday, May 29, 2009 DRAFT – 4/14/09 Joint Elected Officials Subcommittee Meeting April 13, 2009, 12 p.m. – 2 pm Lane Council of Governments, Buford Conference Room Elected Officials: Mike Clark, City of Eugene; Rob Handy, Lane County; Christine Lundberg, City of Springfield; Dave Ralston, City of Springfield; Faye Stewart, Lane County (note: Andrea Ortiz was scheduled to attend but had a work conflict). Staff: Betsy Shepard, Facilitator; Lisa Gardner, Susan Muir, City of Eugene; Bill Grile, Greg Mott, City of Springfield; Kent Howe, Matt Laird, Lane County; Jamon Kent, Megan Banks, LCOG Welcome/Purpose (Betsy) Betsy reiterated the purpose of today’s meeting and reminded the group about next week’s meeting on April 20, 12-2, McNutt Room, Eugene, If necessary, the group will meet May 18. She reviewed the agenda. Betsy referred to the Little Look summary that was part of March 3, 2009 JEO meeting. She stressed that collaboration and working cooperatively kept coming up throughout the process. Check In (Group) Betsy began a round robin as a check in. Commissioner Handy noted that there was some skepticism about the process. Councilor Lundberg wanted to determine what was important out of the Big Look and Little Look work. Councilor Clark wanted clarity between the organizations and about where we are going. Commissioner Stewart noted that he preferred to work together and is frustrated by notices that the region may be getting out of the Metro Plan. He would like to advance the five plus items from the Board to get recommendations from JEO subcommittee to JEO. Councilor Ralston wanted to know Lane County’s issues and what the bottom line would be. Working Agreements (Betsy/Group) Betsy proposed working agreements for the group that included: listen; be respectful (principles not personalities); be truthful; suspend certainty (see perspectives and possibilities); strive for collaboration and cooperation; be future and solution oriented; quality conversations. Betsy discussed the Organizational Change diagram. JEO Subcommittee Meeting page 1 4/13/2009 Recap of Issues (Kent) Kent stated that when the Metro Plan was initiated and Periodic Review completed the county in 2004, changes in funding, such as loss of timber payments, were not anticipated. Although the discussion is not necessarily limited to the five issues identified, the mayors and commissioner chair decided to begin with the following two issues: key urban services and jurisdictional autonomy. Kent clarified that the Metro Plan, not statute, directs key urban services. Kent also noted that the Metro Plan is complex, interlinked and interwoven. When something is pulled one way, it stretches another. He also stated that the Metro Plan is primarily land use but with some of the five issues, it reaches beyond land use. Councilor Clark noted that he would like to look at the bigger picture, and identify what the key services include. Additional Issues (Group) Betsy asked if there was anything that wasn’t on the wall that should be mentioned. Councilor Clark stated that outcomes may have impacts to the regional economic development. Commissioner Stewart stated that clarifying the impacts of doing away with the Metro Plan was necessary. Councilor Lundberg stated that we have to deal with the Metro Plan and the separate UGBs that are now linked. Commissioner Handy noted that population forecasts—whose figures to use, Safe Harbor numbers or other, small city numbers, etc.—have implications. Betsy stated that staff needs direction on how to organize and would like elected officials to dot vote. She distributed seven dots each with instructions that all dots could go on one issue if desired. Commissioner Handy stated that UGB expansion/rural reserves should be added to the list. Councilor Clark asked if staff thought anything was missing. Staff responded that they thought everything was covered. Betsy observed that she hoped the dot voting exercise would help key issues emerge, although the other issues would not be off the table, and help determine how to move forward for the next meeting. JEO Subcommittee Meeting page 2 4/13/2009 Commissioner Handy acknowledged that the Board would like to go after substantive issues but was also okay with the two “low hanging fruit.” Commissioner Stewart noted that the five issues were preceded by a letter that wasn’t really acknowledged by the cities. The county still wanted to move forward and knows it can’t do away with the Metro Plan. He stated that the mayors and board commissioner chair identified those two of five issues as ones they believed could be successes. He stated the board would still like to deal with the bigger issues. Commissioner Handy stated that it doesn’t mean the Metro Plan has to go away, but need to identify what the options are for dealing with issues that are important. Betsy clarified that dots were to go on the pages but not the list of five issues. After the dots were up, the group discussed the results. Councilor Ralston observed that the conversation about doing away with the Metro Plan received six dots. Councilor Clark noted that the discussion on rural reserves would include state law since it influences that topic. Commissioner Handy noted that talk about the Metro Plan and HB 3337 discussion keeps coming back to key urban services as a policy item. Councilor Lundberg stated that a fundamental discussion is whether to keep the Metro Plan whole and/or identifying what to look at individually. Should decide whether to do away with one plan and have individual plans. No matter what we do individually, we are interrelated with regional issues such as transportation or wastewater. Commissioner Handy noted that there was a three-way relationship, with give and take on issues. Background on County’s #2 Issue (Kent) Kent observed that there were commonalities among the dots—public safety is embodied into the list of five, as well as the HB 3337 question. Kent continued with the key urban services discussion and noted that while the Metro Plan is primarily a land use document, it is written in such a way that it branches out. He referred to the handout that includes the key urban services section from the Metro Plan. Discussion on County’s #2 Issue; Where are we (Group) Councilor Clark asked if there was anything in the statute that helped clarify or explain key urban services. Kent noted that a land use focus on key urban services would be on growth inducing. When the Metro Plan was written, Measures 5 and 47, and funding in general weren’t issues or limiting factors. JEO Subcommittee Meeting page 3 4/13/2009 Betsy asked for a clarification of wording for urban services. Commissioner Stewart stated that the county provides a lot of services. Consider differentiating between “intense” development versus “rural” development. Councilor Ralston stated that if we were to list out services, the underlying issue would be who pays for it. Commissioner Handy noted that so many pieces are interspersed and interwoven; not only who pays but who will pay for a Metro Plan Update. He also noted that transportation and land use are co-joined, and growth gets at both. Councilor Lundberg stated that the Metro Plan may need an overhaul—can’t just do one piece; maybe Metro Plan gets at certain services related to land use and growth. These are enormous tasks—trying to identify solutions that will work for each jurisdiction, doesn’t mean all will agree. Councilor Clark stated that we need more clarity from staff; want more structural guidance on who does what. We should back out to larger principles and need to identify on what basis should city provide versus county: for example, what is county bound to provide for public safety? Roles and conflict resolution should be clarified. Bill Grile stated that in terms of Metro Plan history, the minimum that is necessary for a state-mandated acknowledged plan is Goal 11, Public Facilities, and Goal 12, Transportation. Councilor Ralston stated that a list of services, who is using them and who is paying for them would be helpful. Commissioner Handy asked about the status of the Metro Plan language drafted by Springfield. Greg Mott responded that it was drafted as a “first blush” to implement HB 3337 and was a minimalist approach. He added that they were working more towards two refinement plans, and hadn’t been instructed to do away with the Metro Plan. He noted they were trying to ascertain how elements were “nested.” For example, as soon as HB 3337 is implemented, parts of the Metro Plan aren’t valid any more. He also added that until all the work is done, it is hard to be accurate in terms of inconsistencies within the Metro Plan, and that the cities will have to work with the county on certain issues. Susan Muir echoed that Eugene is staying in compliance with HB 3337, and hadn’t been directed to do away with the Metro Plan. Lisa Gardner noted that at the regional planning meetings, they will figure out the legal set up for the Metro Plan in terms of HB 3337. She added that they have tried to make a distinction between land use-related state goals and critical services. JEO Subcommittee Meeting page 4 4/13/2009 Commissioner Handy asked about references to the Lane County Boundary Commission in the Metro Plan. Lisa explained that the City of Eugene has dealt with that in its annexation ordinances. Commissioner Handy asked about a special area zone to deal with River Road/Santa Clara. Greg noted that when municipal authority for annexations returned to the city, it trumps the Metro Plan language but should deal with references to the Boundary Commission with Metro Plan housekeeping. He added that they have not done an analysis of the Metro Plan growth management policies but they will. Check Out (Group) For next meeting: ? Define services; define urban and rural ? Clarify list ? Who provides ? Who pays ? Summarize from county perspective Metro Plan or not; (Springfield) rural reserves; (Eugene) River Road/Santa Clara – brainstorm possibilities Councilor Ralston noted that the Metro Plan should either be overhauled or gotten rid of. Matt Laird added that identifying which services will be covered in the Metro Plan should include a look at Policy 15 in the existing Metro Plan, special services districts. LCOG: L:\CITY COUNTY PLANNING\METRO\JEO\JEO SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING NOTES 041309.DOC Last Saved: May 29, 2009 JEO Subcommittee Meeting page 5 4/13/2009 Joint Elected Officials Subcommittee Meeting May 7, 2009, 12 p.m. – 2 pm City of Eugene, McNutt Conference Room Elected Officials: Mike Clark, City of Eugene; Rob Handy, Lane County; Christine Lundberg, City of Springfield; Andrea Ortiz, City of Eugene; Dave Ralston, City of Springfield; Faye Stewart, Lane County. Staff: Betsy Shepard, Facilitator; Lisa Gardner, City of Eugene; Greg Mott, City of Springfield; Kent Howe, Matt Laird, Lane County; Jamon Kent, Megan Banks, LCOG. Welcome/Check-in (Group) Betsy reiterated the purpose of today’s meeting and reminded the group that the meeting was set up as a work session. She reviewed the agenda and attendees introduced themselves. Betsy referred to the Little Look summary that was part of March 3, 2009 JEO meeting. She stressed that collaboration and working cooperatively kept coming up throughout the process. Working Agreements Review (Betsy) Betsy reviewed the working agreements established at the March 3 meeting (listen; be respectful; be truthful; suspend certainty; collaborate and cooperate; be future and solution oriented and quality conversations. Recap of Last Meeting and Desired Outcomes (Betsy/Group) Betsy noted that much work had gone on since that the last meeting. She noted that the packet included the dot voting results, Roblan report and Metro Plan-No Metro Plan question and answer summary. Betsy distributed two handouts: a Glossary of Commonly Used Terms and goals for the subcommittee meeting today/process following the June 1 JEO meeting. She explained that the goals for the subcommittee meeting today include: Focus on land use. Understand that the county’s issues are intertwined with the larger Metro Plan picture. Explore and understand Metro Plan or no Metro Plan. Explore and understand implications of HB 3337. Develop policy questions for Metro Plan or no Metro Plan. Clearly articulate findings for full JEO meeting on June 1. Commissioner Handy offered that as a footnote, land use and transportation are integrated. JEO Subcommittee Meeting page 1 5/7/2009 Betsy referred to Metro Plan-No Metro Plan question and answer summary, and noted that it was an excellent explanation. She handed out two diagrams and reviewed wall versions of the same. She explained that first diagram, titled Current Metro Plan— Related Requirements and Issues—was organized by rows and columns. The top row listed the chapters of the current Metro Plan; row two described the county’s responsibilities according to the Roblan report; row three listed out the five issues raised by the county and possible ways to address those issues. She added that Public Safety, notwithstanding police protection, was not included in the Metro Plan. She added that two of the items in the final row, which were the top dot vote getting issues at the March 3 JEO subcommittee meeting, were Public Safety and Regional Economic Development. These two items are not in the Metro Plan. Betsy added that the last items raised at the March 3 JEO subcommittee led the group to the second diagram titled Metro Plan Alternatives Diagram. She walked through and explained that there were essentially two alternatives—No Metro Plan and a Revised Metro Plan. She added that general cost and time had been identified for the various options. Betsy opened up for questions. Commissioner Stewart asked about the Metro Plan Alternatives diagram and noted that some of his colleagues believed that the cities already have plans and Periodic Review is in place. He asked about what exists today. Kent Howe replied that the cities and county were done with Periodic Review. Greg Mott explained that the cities and county have a single acknowledged plan that satisfies the statewide planning goals. If there was no Metro Plan, cities would have to do their own comprehensive plans with county co-adoption, exposing themselves to initiating a new plan from scratch and responding to each statewide planning goal. He also explained that DLCD would require a work plan for each plan using the Periodic Review requirements. He emphasized that this would be an extremely long and complicated undertaking. Commissioner Stewart asked about timing. Greg responded that when the Metro Plan was done in 1977, the region was able to use various reports already prepared by the county but it still took until 1982 before it was acknowledged. Councilor Lundberg asked about the “who” and “where” for metro planning. Greg explained that the county co-adopts the cities’ plans. The cities and county would take different paths to create individual comp plans, including individual work plans. The county’s most significant contribution would be the land between the city limits and UGBs, and who would be responsible for those lands. Greg added that regional matters must be maintained; all three jurisdictions must coordinate even though three comp plans would exist. He observed that decisions made in the past relied on the legal framework established in the current Metro Plan. Might not JEO Subcommittee Meeting page 2 5/7/2009 be able to rely on that anymore because new comp plans supersede that. At this point, the jurisdictions are not even sure where to begin with the legal framework. Lisa Gardner stated that Periodic Review is triggered by the separate comp plan approach. Those comp plans would be individually funded; wouldn’t be pooling resources as before. DLCD resources would also be going to three different jurisdictions rather than one combined effort. Commissioner Stewart added that there is the perception that the jurisdictions are already doing Periodic Review. He clarified that he understood this is not so—had been done as one entity but could be doing three times with separate plans. Lisa added that there are new DLCD rules that are not completely clear. The jurisdictions would be at the mercy of DLCD when developing new work plans. She explained that the jurisdictions would be subject to any new requirements related to Periodic Review that are now applicable. Commissioner Handy stated that it is stressful to prioritize and respond to DLCD requirements, and it is complex to carve out and frame relationships. Commissioner Stewart stated that he understands state acknowledgement of a comp plan is necessary. He said his colleagues believe that the county often approves city requests but when the county goes to the cities, this is not reciprocated. This builds tensions when the jurisdictions meet. Councilor Lundberg noted that because of the positions we are in—representing different constituents—we need and want autonomy. It is okay to agree to disagree. For example, land use and transportation is not just a single definition/statement that everyone agrees on. She added that revisions would require agreements by all jurisdictions. She also stated that autonomy should be at the top. If this was in a revised Metro Plan, that would look better. Consider taking out the option of all three jurisdictions approving something such as UGBs. Greg added that the state requires cities and the county to co-adopt UGBs. The local set- up is for the three jurisdictions to do that although there is nothing in state law that requires that. In 1994, the jurisdictions updated the Metro Plan so that any changes within the city limits are exclusive to the respective jurisdiction. Outside the UGB, county initiates and city participates. He added that the Board and jurisdictions could change or update this. Kent added that as he understood it, Councilor Lundberg’s assumption was that in a revised Metro Plan, there wouldn’t be jurisdictional autonomy. With HB 3337, the cities will be “disjointed,” but will always be connected to the county. Greg stated that there would be refinement plans for east and west of I-5, adopted by Lane County and Springfield, and Lane County and Eugene. Anything included with JEO Subcommittee Meeting page 3 5/7/2009 respect to policies will be between the county and city. What will remain in the Metro Plan are fundamental, universal policies not affected by HB 3337. Kent stated that he supports the recognition of the regional importance of the Metro Plan because of its framework for regional issues—MWMC, TransPlan, etc. Lisa asked what percentage of the Metro Plan knits us together? She noted that the jurisdictions haven’t addressed the legal implications of disassembling the Metro Plan. Councilor Clark noted that the unintended consequences could be long and challenging. He asked what would happen if there is a dispute between the county and city on the UGB? Greg added that the structure of MPC would need to be addressed. Both are required by law to adopt and then go to the commission for approval. If can’t get there, not sure what happens. Kent added that HB 3337 requires inventories to be complete. Will need to meet statute. Councilor Clark asked about the implications of the Safe Harbor population numbers. Commissioner Stewart added that if cities do a UGB split, and the facts justify the numbers but the county says no, do the cities have any recourse? Greg responded that he was not sure what would happen. There is no precedent. Usually it is not city or county who disagrees but advocacy groups or those party to changes. Commissioner Handy added that one jurisdiction has asked for an extension already. No extension on determination piece because mandated by statute. Betsy noted that regarding the current Metro Plan diagram, are those proposals listed to address the five county issues acceptable/good direction? For example, dispute resolution. Commissioner Stewart responded that MPC doesn’t address dispute resolution. Councilor Lundberg stated that there are very different philosophies. If have to change policies in the Metro Plan, won’t likely come to agreement because different philosophies. Commissioner Stewart noted that it is not practical to not have a Metro Plan. For example, there was a big effort to get rid of the Boundary Commission but now without it, it is worse for the cities than before. He advises fixing the small problems and getting autonomy without doing away with the Metro Plan. JEO Subcommittee Meeting page 4 5/7/2009 Councilor Ortiz stated that she didn’t disagree with Councilor Lundberg but that we don’t live in silos—for example, she currently works in Springfield. She would prefer to revise the Metro Plan. MWMC is a good example of working together. She is also an advocate of being inclusive and being sure everyone is heard. It is a balancing act between individual jurisdictions. She noted that this is a long-term conversation—needs to evolve and reflect community issues of today. Money would be better spent on things other than an entirely new Metro Plan. rd Councilor Clark added an example of something that is working well is the 3 Battalion. The economy today leads us towards economies of scale. A huge amount of money and time would be required when we least can afford it. Is there a hybrid model that lets us have as much autonomy as possible? Jamon noted that Salem-Keizer is a possible example but not sure of implications and applicability. Greg said that voluntarily agreements were originally developed in 1970s; all the jurisdictions would have to give up veto power, which is difficult to do. Councilor Lundberg said it is difficult for all three to address the same policy questions when their philosophies are different. Lisa added that could include dispute resolution process as part of revisions; for example, a hearings official could address disputes. Greg noted that MPC used to be more focused on land use; as LCOG Board transferred MPO authority to MPC, it became more transportation-focused. Councilor Ralston stated that no matter what, cities and the county are tied together. There is not much difference between no Metro Plan and a complete rewrite. He believes there are some good pieces in the Metro Plan, though. It is frustrating to have to rely on two other jurisdictions when trying to get something done. He asked if Springfield by itself could go with the no Metro Plan option. Autonomy is premiere. Greg responded that legal input would be needed to answer that question. The Metro Plan is a form of a contract; not sure of the contract obligations. Commissioner Handy asked what Portland Metro learned when they were at this point— dealing with capacity issues, where to grow, etc. Kent noted that Portland Metro is regional. It is another layer of government, with taxing authority, etc. Even the county reports to Metro. Greg described the Region 2050 process and the regional problem solving statute. JEO Subcommittee Meeting page 5 5/7/2009 Councilor Clark asked if there was an arbiter body that Springfield could look towards that would be acceptable. Councilor Lundberg stated that the cities and county work for and represent the same people. The issue is that there is more that is linked three-ways. Kent asked for clarification about whether the autonomy centered on land use as well as transportation. Councilor Ralston responded that it was mainly land use. He said in his opinion, public safety is okay. Kent noted that if land use is where the cities want autonomy, HB 3337 distinguishes the cities and Springfield won’t have to get Eugene’s approval. Greg added that is the intent of the structure of refinement plans nested within the Metro Plan. All other policies within the Metro Plan are still there. If one wants to change, still need all three to weigh in. Matt stated that if we assume there is a revised Metro Plan, we could identify what should be removed and what should not. Can identify regional issues and clearly identify where autonomy is appropriate. To summarize, would look at three sections: 1) autonomy; 2) agreements; and 3) what to remove. Councilor Clark asked if an ACT would address some of the issues. Greg responded that all three have to co-adopt regional items. MPC adopts Regional Transportation Plan. Cities are also developing city-specific transportation system plans. An ACT forwards priorities to OTC. Commissioner Handy added that ODOT Region 2 also trades projects. Greg stated that one question to address is what about the Metro Plan can be preserved. Some elements provide overarching guidance that is carried out locally. Commissioner Handy stated that there isn’t a clear path for autonomy without responsibility. What parts of the Metro Plan aren’t impacted? Commissioner Stewart stated that he thought we should work through the issues and salvage what we can without doing away with the Metro Plan. Lisa highlighted the two diagrams and said there are areas we need to examine more closely. Need to separate out those areas that are working and determine where individual discretion is appropriate. JEO Subcommittee Meeting page 6 5/7/2009 Next Steps (Group) Betsy asked the group how they would like to move forward. Councilor Clark advised that another meeting is necessary to develop a recommendation for the larger JEO group. Councilor Lundberg stated that the subcommittee needed more information from staff before bringing back anything to the larger JEO group. She agreed another meeting was necessary. Commissioner Handy stated that he wasn’t sure the JEO subcommittee has a recommendation. He requested more information on the implications and agreed that identifying and determining where individual discretion is appropriate is a good idea. He also thought it would be a good idea to talk to Portland Metro people. Councilor Ortiz stated that she saw two choices and more conversation was needed. She concurred that the approach of “autonomy, agreements; and what not” was a good one. She asked if there could be any more information from the attorneys. Commissioner Stewart asked for a complete list of Metro Plan items where three jurisdictions agree in the context of revising the Metro Plan. Betsy added that the goal is not to keep looping back. The subcommittee doesn’t have to have a recommendation. It is okay to say that the group is “leaning” a certain way. Lisa added that more dimension to Option 2, revision the Metro Plan, would be appropriate, including: what are the issues and which will be addressed by HB 3337; where are the areas of agreement; and which require “surgical” fixes. Betsy proposed another meeting on Wednesday, May 27, 10 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. LCOG: L:\CITY COUNTY PLANNING\METRO\JEO\JEO METRO SUB COMMITTEE\MEETING MATERIALS 05-27-09\JEO SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING NOTES 050709.DOC Last Saved: May 18, 2009 JEO Subcommittee Meeting page 7 5/7/2009 The meeting notes of the May 27, 2009, Joint Elected Officials Subcommittee meeting are being compiled and will be distributed by e-mail or at the June 1, 2009 JEO meeting. LCOG: L:\City County Planning\METRO\JEO\JEO Metro Sub Committee\052709 mtg notes to come.doc Last Saved: Friday, May 29, 2009 Metro Plan Issues Identified at March 3, 2009 Joint Elected Officials Meeting (JEO Subcommittee prioritized the issues using dots; listed in descending order) Regional coordination on public safety should be a priority. 7 dots Interested in the Metro Plan role in coordinating public safety services. Felt public safety discussion needed to be held, but not in the context of the Metro Plan. ____________________________________________ Conversation about doing away with Metro Plan 7 dots ______________________________________________ Concerned with the dilution of the Metro Plan with the implementation of HB 3337. Supports autonomy between the two cities under Metro Plan. 6 dots Autonomy is important. Allow each city to retain their autonomy through refinement plans while still meeting the needs of the Metro area. ______________________________________________ Regional Economic Development 6 dots ________________________________________________________ HB 3337- requires us to deal with Metro Plan, one way or another 6 dots ______________________________________________ Do the elected officials agree with the policies that govern the Metro Plan? Should identify the policies in disagreement and/or new ones to add. 3 dots ___________________________________________ Interested in and want preservation of farmland (rural reserves). (3 elected officials) 3 dots What needs to be changed in Metro Plan to protect farmland? /UGB Boundary Expansion _________________________________________________ Name population forecasts- Safe Harbor #’s 2 dots _________________________________________________ Staff needs to focus conversation for next meeting. Conversation should be about specific fixes. Need to establish trust, accountability and respect. Identify desired outcome then develop plan to achieve and process to govern how to get there. 1 dot ______________________________________________ How do the jurisdictions view the future value of the Metro Plan once HB 3337 implemented? Metro Plan seems to be outdated and restrictive and should be reviewed collaboratively. 1 dot What are the three jurisdictions trying to accomplish? ____________________________________________ Who do each of the jurisdictions represent? _____________________________________________ Are the jurisdictions taking care of the needs of their individual constituents? ____________________________________________ Support for nodal development. ___________________________________________ Interested in concept of Metro Plan recognizing sustainability of economic development. ___________________________________________ Potential Metro Plan Revisions by Chapter [version 2] May 2009 Metro Plan Chapter, Section, and Applicable Applicable County and JEO Subcommittee Current Metro Plan and External Influences/Impacts Cost and Time Estimate Statewide Planning Goal Issues CHAPTER I JEO: ? HB 3337 (p. I-1, -3, -5 and -10) Lane County ? HB 3337 ? State law – planning goals and administrative rules (p. I-6) Introduction ? Urban Transition Agreements ? Population Projections (p. I-1 and -7) Springfield ? Metro Plan diagram (p. I-4 and -6) Eugene ? Plan Boundaries diagram (p. I-4 and -6) ? Urban Transition (p. I-8) CHAPTER II, Sections A - G County: ? HB 3337 (Sections II-A; -C, D, E) ? Jurisdictional Autonomy (Section II-D) ? Jurisdictional Autonomy (p. II-A-1) Fundamental Principles and Growth Lane County ? Definition of Key Urban Services (p. II-A-2 ? State law – planning goals and associated administrative rules Management Policy Framework and Section II-E) ? Population Projections (p. II-A-2) Springfield ? Urban Transition Agreements/Rural ? Abolishment of Boundary Commission (Section II-E) Reserves (Section II-E) ? River Road/Santa Clara (Section II-F) Eugene ? Metro Plan diagram, Designations, Location Descriptions and Plan Boundaries diagram (Section II-G) ? Urban and Urbanizable Land (Section II-E) CHAPTER III JEO: HB 3337 (chapter) Lane County ? HB 3337 A Springfield Residential Land Use and Housing Element Eugene (Goal 10) CHAPTER III JEO: ? Lane County Commercial and Industrial inventories/supply and demand ? Regional Economic Development (chapter) B Springfield ? Metro Plan diagram and Designations (p.III-B-6) Eugene Economic Element (Goal 9) CHAPTER III County: ? Agricultural Land (chapter) Lane County ? Jurisdictional Autonomy ? Forest Lands (chapter) C ? Urban Transition Agreements/Rural ? Springfield Land inventories (p. III-C-8 to 10) Reserves ? Metro Plan diagram, Designations and Location Descriptions Eugene Environmental Resources Element (p. III-C-8 to 10) (Goals 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) ? Plan Boundaries diagram (p. III-C-11 to 12; C-15 to 16) CHAPTER III County: ? Metro Plan diagram, Designations and Location Descriptions Lane County ? Jurisdictional Autonomy (chapter) D ?? Urban Transition Agreements Plan Boundaries diagram (chapter) Springfield Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors Eugene and Waterways Element (Goal 15) Metro Plan Chapter, Section, and Applicable Applicable County and JEO Subcommittee Current Metro Plan and External Influences/Impacts Cost and Time Estimate Statewide Planning Goal Issues CHAPTER III Lane County E Springfield Eugene Environmental Design Element CHAPTER III ? RTSP/TSP Updates (chapter) Lane County ? State law – planning goals and associated administrative rules F Springfield (chapter) ? Metro Plan diagram, Designations; Location Descriptions and Eugene Transportation Element (Goal 12) Plan Boundaries diagram (chapter) CHAPTER III County: ? PFSP Updates (chapter) Lane County ? Definition of Key Urban Services ? Individual updates by city (chapter) G ? Urban Transition Agreements/Rural ? Regional agreements (chapter) Springfield Reserves Public Facilities and Services Element Eugene (Goal 11) CHAPTER III ? River Road Park and Recreation District (p. III-H-1) ? Willamalane Park and Recreation District (p. III-H-1) Lane County H J I ? Individual Parks and Recreation Master Plans, Historic Preservation Plans and Energy Management Plans by cities Springfield and county (chapter) Parks & Recreation Facilities Element (Goal Eugene 11); Historic Preservation Element (Goal 5); Energy Conservation Element (Goal 13) CHAPTER III County: ? Metropolitan Policy Committee (chapter) Lane County ? Jurisdictional Autonomy ? Joint Planning Commission Committee (chapter) K ? Dispute Resolution ? Springfield Individual planning commissions (chapter) ? Citizen Advisory Committees (chapter) Eugene Citizen Involvement Element (Goal 1) CHAPTER IV County: ? HB 3337 (chapter) Lane County Metro Plan Review, Amendments and ? Jurisdictional Autonomy ? Metropolitan Policy Committee (chapter) Refinements ? Dispute Resolution ? Metro Plan amendments (chapter) Springfield ? Urban Transition Agreements JEO: Eugene ? HB 3337 CHAPTER V County: ? Lane County Annexation (p. V-1) Glossary ? Definition of Key Urban Services ? Buildable land (p. V-1) Springfield ? Jurisdictional Autonomy ? Definition of Key Urban Services (p. V-3) Eugene ? Metro Plan diagram and Plan Boundaries diagram (p. V-3) LCOG: L:\City County Planning\METRO\JEO\Diagrams\Chapter-Section Detailed Matrix 5-09.doc Last Saved: Friday, May 29, 2009 Subcommittee Recommendations June 1, 2009 1. Direct Staff from all three jurisdictions to develop a work plan that includes a timeline, cost estimate and implications for specific changes to the Metro Plan based on recommendations from each jurisdictions that include but are not limited to the following: a. Overarching policies that identify and address regional issues. b. Policies that allow for individual refinement plans for Eugene and Springfield to address jurisdiction specific issues. c. Adjustments to the Metro Plan boundary and text to address jurisdictional issues arising in the urbanizable area and the area outside the urban growth boundary. d. A dispute resolution process that reflects the changes described in a – c.