Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem C: Region 2050 Update EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY c Work Session: Region 2050 Update Meeting Date: April 10, 2006 Department: Planning and Development www.eugene-or.gov Agenda Item Number: C Staff Contact: Kurt Yeiter Contact Telephone Number: 682-8379 ISSUE STATEMENT The Region 2050 process has resulted in a draft product entitled the Southern Willamette Valley Regional Growth Management Strategy. At this work session, Councilor Kelly, the City's representative to the Region 2050 Policy Advisory Board, will provide an update on the project, overview of key facets of the draft strategy, and solicit council direction for future City participation. BACKGROUND Region 2050 is a collaborative regional planning effort in the southern Willamette Valley. It began in the summer of 1999 with the adoption of formal resolutions by the Lane County Board of Commissioners and the City Councils of Coburg, Cottage Grove, Creswell, Eugene, Junction City, Lowell, Oakridge, Springfield, Veneta, and Westfir. The resolutions endorsed the concept of developing a Regional Growth Management Strategy and defined the forum for the dialogue among the regional partners. Each of these governments appointed elected officials to serve on the Regional Policy Advisory Board, which guides the Region 2050 process, and includes a Lane Transit District (LTD) Board member and staff from the Governor's office. The project is managed through the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). Oregon Law (ORS 197.652-658) creates the Regional Problem Solving (RPS) process that empowers local governments to agree on unique, regionally appropriate solutions to regional problems. The RPS solutions may differ from state administrative rules if the solution is agreed upon by all the local participating jurisdictions in the region, meets state goals and statutes, and is approved by the affected state agencies. The Region 2050 project for the southern Willamette Valley asks all eleven participating jurisdictions to agree on goals, objectives, and actions in these seven key areas: . Land Use and Development Patterns . Jobs and the Economy . Housing . Transportation . Community Facilities and Services . Natural Resources, Open Space, and the Environment . Education There is much general information about the Region 2050 project online at: www.region2050.org. LICMOl2006 Council Agendas1M0604101S060410C.doc The draft Southern Willamette Valley Regional Growth Management Strategy can be viewed in its entirety online at: http://www.region2050 . org/pdf/meetings/022006/DRAFTStrategy. pdf At this juncture, the future of Region 2050 is unclear. On March 6, 2006, the City of Springfield declined to participate in more Region 2050 planning activities. This raises the question of whether any future products or actions that do not have Springfield's consent qualify as RPS. In its deliberations, the Springfield City Council expressed concerns that the draft strategy was too broad and did not adequately identify or focus on specific problems or supply specific solutions, and that this process may limit each city's autonomy to act in its best interest. Additionally, on March 27,2006, the City of Cottage Grove took similar action. Representatives from the Policy Board, LCOG, and Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) will meet on April 10, 2006, to discuss the project's future. At the very least, the Region 2050 process provided a forum for communities in this region to meet regularly and share concerns about local growth and other issues that affect, and are affected by the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. The process provided much data that enabled several small communities to further their local planning efforts. The strategy, as drafted, provides regionally coordinated voluntary actions in the categories listed above based on the desires of each community. For example, one of the most interesting and impactful strategies is a new regional distribution of projected growth. The draft strategy, if adopted by the participating jurisdictions, creates a regional compact growth scenario that would encourage more growth in the smaller communities (at least to a point), lower target populations in Eugene, and higher densities within the Eugene urban growth boundary. The draft strategy also identified logical future Urban Growth Boundary expansion areas that might become new Urban Reserves if approved by the state through RPS (excerpts from the strategy regarding growth projections are attached to this agenda item summary). The strategy suggests each city would voluntarily initiate plan amendments so that the local growth management strategy would be consistent with the regional strategy, and that a regional monitoring system be instituted in 2012 and every ten years thereafter. The strategy suggests that an intergovernmental agreement would be required of the local and state jurisdictions to endorse the regional strategy. Other issues raised through Region 2050 include (to name just a few): strategies for achieving jobs- housing balance in satellite communities; regional transportation and transit needs; regional services (e.g., water, wastewater); affordable housing; regional economic planning; natural resource protection; subsistence farming; and opportunities to pursue increased funding opportunities on behalf of the region. If all or part of this RPS program survives, and if there is interest by this City Council to continue the City of Eugene's participation, the draft strategy will be analyzed and refined over the next year, providing better information about how the strategy will be implemented, and its costs, impacts, and local obligations. RELATED CITY POLICIES In 1999, the City Council by resolution supported the concept of a coordinated growth management strategy for the southern Willamette Valley region. The draft strategy (2006) differs from adopted plans, such as the Metro Plan, partly because its scope addresses a larger planning area, longer planning period, and larger projected populations. LICMOl2006 Council Agendas1M0604101S060410C.doc COUNCIL OPTIONS The council has the following options: 1. Continue the City's participation at its current levels; 2. Decline to provide additional resources toward Region 2050 planning activities; or 3. Identify fewer, specific issues for which the City will continue participation in regional problem solving. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends taking Option 1 and continuing with the discussions that are currently underway until further information about the future of Region 2050 can be understood from the discussions occurring with the state. In addition, the City Manager would recommend that the council provide Councilor Kelly, the City's representative to the Region 2050 Policy Advisory Board with: 1. Comments on the draft strategy, particularly related to Eugene, to take back to the Policy Advisory Board; 2. Feedback about the proposed Regional Growth Concept map for Eugene, including potential conditions (e.g., population, density) to consider UGB alterations; and 3. Feedback on the value of dealing at a regional level with some or all of the Seven Key Areas listed on the first page of this AlS. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to direct the City Manager to continue the City's participation at its current levels and monitor the discussions with the State about the future of the Region 2050 project. ATTACHMENTS A. Regional Context Map B. Letter from Faye Stewart, Lane County Board of Commissioners, to Lane Shetterly, DLCD C. Letter from Lane Shetterly, DLCD, to Faye Stewart, Lane County Board of Commissioners D. Excerpts for Eugene-Springfield Comparing Region 2050 Densities to Current E. Map: Regional Growth Concept F. Comparison of Forecasted 2055 Coordinated Population to Regional Growth Concept Population FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Kurt Yeiter, Principal Planner Telephone: 682-8379 Staff E-Mail: kurt.m.yeiter@ci.eugene.or.us LICMOl2006 Council Agendas1M0604101S060410C.doc Regional Context Map ATTACHMENT A , ... . . - 1 " " . . , .. f ' . . . . , ~ . \ . . . " . IJ l \... r~ ~~ _r. -. -: ~ , .. . . " r . . 1 , .. # .. -~ fl , , T t .. 41: I 1 . . . - .-.- . I --" ~, ", . '0 . , "' ;. . I , ... " .-.. FAYE HILLS STEWART Lane County Commissioner East Lane District Faye. Stewart@co.lane.or.us February 28, 2006 WD bc/fs/06004/T Mr. Lane Shetterly Department of Land Conservation and Development 635 Capitol Street, Suite 150 Salem, OR 97301-2540 Dear Lane: The Policy Advisory Board met on February 22, 2006 and posed the following question to you about the Regional Problem Solving process. The text below was recommended to the Board by the Regional Technical Advisory Committee (RTAC). The Policy Board wants assurances from DLCD that the Department will recommend this approach to your commission before proceeding further with the process. Your kind assistance at this critical juncture would be very welcome and appreciated. Is implementation of the Regional Growth Management Strategy by the 11 local governments voluntary? 1. All participating jurisdictions endorse the Regional Growth Management Strategy, when final, as a tool to help guide growth and development. As part of this endorsement, the 11 local governments will agree to the coordinated population allocations reflected in the Strategy for their jurisdiction. Strategy endorsement and agreement on the population allocations do not involve a land use action at the local level. 2. The only action at the Strategy agreement stage is taken by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). The action taken by LCDC will be to find the Strategy in compliance with the intent of the statewide planning goals. Chapter VII of the attached February 14, 2006 Draft Regional Growth Management Strategy contains a list of the applicable Goals and the source of the data to support these findings. 3. Implementation of the "Optional Measures"l in the Strategy, including the use of the Regional Problem Solving (RPS) process, remains voluntarv. This is consistent with the language o.fthe 1 ORS 197.656 states: "(2) Following the procedures set forth in this subsection, the commission may acknowledge amendments to comprehensive plans and land use regulations, or new land use regulations, that do not fully comply . with the rules of the connnission that implement the statewide planning goals, without taking an exception, upon a determination that: (a) The amendments or new provisions are based upon agreements reached by all local participants, the commission and other participating state agencies, in the collaborative regional problem-solving process; (b) The regional problem-solving process has included agreement among the participants on: PUBLIC SERVICE BUILDING / 125 EAST 8TH AVENUE / EUGENE, OR 97401 / (541) 682-4203 / FAX (541) 682-4616 RPS Statute that calls for "Optional Measures" and "incentives and disincentives to encourage implementation. " 4. One of the incentives to implement the Strategy that will be included in the Strategy (see Chapter VI starting on page 53 of the attached Draft) is that once a critical threshold of implementation occurs, regional benefits will be realized that go beyond the local benefits individual jurisdictions realize when they each complete their own separate implementation. For example, once Veneta amends its comprehensive plan to designate Urban Reserves, it benefits from the Goal compliance status of those areas as future areas for UGB expansions and the City will be positioned to plan the infrastructure to serve the growth it anticipates. These are local benefits to implementation. If all, or a critical threshold of, jurisdictions implement the Strategy to designate Urban Reserves, this provides key information to guide investments in infrastructure and services by Lane Transit District, ODOT, and other local and state agencies, thus benefiting all communities. These thresholds will be defined in the Strategy, as appropriate to the specific state agencies. Thank you very much for considering this request. As always, we are very grateful to you and your staff for your excellent support, guidance, and participation in this process. Sincerely, -=f~ ?/ ~ Faye Stewart, Chairman, Regional Policy Advisory Board (A) Regional goals for resolution of each regional problem that is the subject of the process; (B) Optional techniques to achieve the goals for each regional problem that is the subject of the process; (C) Measurable indicators of performance toward achievement of the goals for each regional problem that is the subject of the process; (D) A system of incentives and disincentives to encourage successful implementation of the techniques chosen by the participants to achieve the goals;" regon Department of Land Conservation and Development 635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150 SalemI Oregon 97301-2524 Phone: (503) 373-0050 First Floor/Coastal Fax: (503) 378-6033 Second Floor/Director's Office: (503) 378-5518 Web Address: http://www.oregon.gov/LeD Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor March 3, 2006 Mr. Faye Stewart, Chair Region 2050 Policy Advisory Board 125 E. 8th Street Eugene, OR 97401 ~ RE: Request for Update on Department of Land Conservation and Development Recommendation Status Dear Commissioner Stewart: I can see by the information included in your recent letter of February 28, 2006 that the Region 2050 jurisdictions are still hard at work and ready to move forward with the next step of their joint, voluntary strategy. We too are interested in the next layers of analysis for housing and employment lands and then the discussions that will occur that will fine tune the solutions. You correctly characterized the regional problem solving process: it is voluntary and the affected jurisdictions must agree on how the solutions they have designed are to be implemented. As the Commission and I have continued to relate, this is a locally driven "problem solving'~ process. Staff and I have reviewed the steps outlined in your letter and find nothing that would curtail our positive support. I think that you are accurate in highlighting that there are thresholds that will need to be addressed in the required monitoring element ORS197.656 (2) (b) (F) of the final strategy, but we understand that you have not reached that point in your discussions yet. We are also confident that the staff that you have hired for the process will be able to complete the findings of compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals as listed on page 57-58 of the February 14, 2006 draft Strategy~ We are very interested in the creative solutions, showing that all input has been carefully considered and wishing you continued success as you move forward into crafting the region's final strate gy ~ Yours very truly, ~~ LANE SHETTERLY Director cc: Marguerite Nabeta~ DLCD Regional Representative Carol Heinkel, LCOG ATTACHMENT D Excerpts for Eugene-Springfield Comparing Region 2050 Densities to Current Net the cherage number reduced bec3use const'ainerj acres reduce calclll3tlons. Land rate of 5% and a llOusehold size were caleu ated the Lane bu c-out of constrJined and with 383 acres of zoned RR5 increased would ,ncrea&e bJsec Of' 3 in 311 other areas. i& the a'lerage net Fall Creek area, the zoned RR 1 C 3S RR::-: the \J;J;cancy lwits bJsed on Net Area acres reduce calculations. O3n(1 ~y'ixed Use effective densities are re{juced t)ec03use are I nclucled in the Regional Growth Concept i"-=-----..__ ,il it - ..-~ ~j il ;1 Iii o I 2 3 4 · Miles N A ( -~ ~ ~wt,EGION 2050 Sustaining Quality of Ufe in the Southern Wil/amerre Valtey LCO'a, I.ANE COIJNCI] OF GOVF,R-:-J"rENTS," Development Types on Rural Lands * I I Rural Residential 1 Acre D Rural Residential 2 Acres D Rural Residential 5 Acres D Rural Residential 1 0 Acres Com mercialll ndustrial Lands _ Parks, Open Space, Public Facilities Rural Resource Lands D [ C::J I Existing Urban Growth Boundaries Potential Future Growth Areas * Rural development types reflect cu rrent zon ing except for increased densities proposed in the Fall Creek area. January 2006