Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B: Metro Plan Boundary Adjustment Proposal (Springfield Side) ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Work Session: Metro Plan Boundary Adjustment Proposal (Springfield Side) Meeting Date: April 24, 2013 Agenda Item Number: B Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Alissa Hansen www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5508 ISSUE STATEMENT This work session provides an opportunity to update the City Council on the proposed Metro Plan boundary amendment to adjust the boundary on the Springfield side of the plan, prior to taking action at a subsequent meeting. BACKGROUND In 2011, the Lane County Board of Commissioners initiated an amendment to the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to make adjustments to the boundary of the Metro Plan. This proposal is directly related to five areas of concern previously identified by the board and discussed by the joint elected officials over the past few years. The purpose of this particular amendment is to seek jurisdictional autonomy on land use matters for those areas that are outside the urban growth boundaries of Springfield and Eugene, but currently inside the Metro Plan boundary. The current Metro Plan amendment under consideration is to reduce the size of the Metro Plan boundary on the east side of I-5, with a resulting Metro Plan boundary that would be coterminous with Springfield’s urban growth boundary (UGB). Approval of this amendment would result in Lane County having sole jurisdictional authority on all land use matters for land outside of Springfield’s UGB that is currently within the Metro Plan. Copies of the current and proposed Metro Plan boundary are provided as Attachments A and B. Adjustment of the Metro Plan boundary on the Eugene side is not part of the current proposal. Based on the Metro Plan’s amendment procedures, Eugene is required to participate in this proposal to adjust the boundary on the Springfield side. The process includes a joint planning commission public hearing and recommendation, followed by a joint elected official’s public hearing and action. All three jurisdictions must approve the same Metro Plan boundary location for the proposal to take effect. In July 2012, the joint planning commissions of Lane County, Springfield and Eugene held the required public hearing, and held a continued hearing in August 2012. Following the close of the public hearing record, the three planning commissions met jointly in October 2012 for deliberations and to provide recommendations to their respective elected officials. The Eugene S:\CMO\2013 Council Agendas\M130424\S130424B.doc Planning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend approval of the proposal to the Eugene City Council. A public hearing before the joint elected officials was held March 13, 2012. A total of 13 people testified at the joint public hearing. Of those testifying, one person testified in support of the proposal, two people expressed concerns or had questions about the impact, and the remaining 10 people testified in opposition of the proposed amendment. Those in opposition of the amendment expressed concern about the loss of regional planning and collaborative decision- making, risk to water quality, and loss of decision-making authority for the City. Subsequently, the City of Springfield, Lane County and the Springfield Utility Board worked together to reach an acceptable solution to ensure that Springfield’s drinking water sources that fall within this area would remain adequately protected once removed from the Metro Plan boundary. On March 18, 2013, the Springfield City Council voted 6 - 0 to approve the amendment to reduce the Metro Plan boundary to become coterminous with Springfield’s urban growth boundary (UGB). This action, if approved by all three jurisdictions, would affect approximately 8,130 acres, all of which would come under the jurisdiction of Lane County and the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan, except that specific issues related to drinking water protection would remain a joint-governance matter between the Lane County Board of Commissioners and the Springfield City Council. The Springfield City Council also voted 6 - 0 to approve the provisions of an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the City of Springfield and Lane County regarding a number of land use matters, but principally actions to protect Springfield Utility Board drinking water source areas. A copy of the draft IGA is provided as Attachment C. The Lane County Board of Commissioners has tentatively approved the proposal, and is scheduled to take final action on June 4, 2013, after both cities have taken action. As noted above, this proposal only pertains to the Springfield side of the Metro Plan Boundary. The scope and timing of a future Lane County-initiated proposal to amend the boundary on the Eugene side of the Metro Plan has not been established, and will be subject to a separate public process. RELATED CITY POLICIES Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan COUNCIL OPTIONS No formal action is required at this time. Council action will be scheduled for a subsequent meeting; options will be provided at that time. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION No action is required on this item. Therefore, no recommendations are offered by the City Manager. Council action will be scheduled for a subsequent meeting; the City Manager will provide a recommendation at that time. S:\CMO\2013 Council Agendas\M130424\S130424B.doc SUGGESTED MOTION No action is required on this item. Therefore, no motions are suggested. Council action will be scheduled for a subsequent meeting; a suggested motion will be provided at that time. ATTACHMENTS A.Map of Current Metro Plan Boundary B.Map of Proposed Metro Plan Boundary C.Draft Intergovernmental Agreement between City of Springfield and Lane County FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Alissa Hansen Telephone: 541-682-5508 Staff E-Mail: alissa.h.hansen@ci.eugene.or.us S:\CMO\2013 Council Agendas\M130424\S130424B.doc TST S13 TST S13 ATTACHMENT C INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT METRO PLAN BOUNDARY BETWEEN: The City of Springfield (City) a municipal corporation of the state of Oregon AND: a political subdivision of the state of Oregon EFFECTIVE DATE: Subject to Section 1.B. and D. below, this Agreement is effective ____________________, 2013 RECITALS: 1. City and County, in the administration of their comprehensive planning responsibilities, jointly adopted the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (2004 update) (). 2. Key elements of the Plan include certain boundaries that define responsibilities regarding land use including the Metropolitan Area General Plan (2004 update) Boundary (the the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), and the city limits (the . 3. Since adoption, which is a unique feature of the Plan and not required by Oregon land use laws. 4. In 2011, Lane County and City amended the UGB east of I-5 to make it site specific. 5. In June of 2011, the County submitted a notice of proposed Post- Acknowledgment Plan Amendment (PAPA) to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) seeking to relocate the Plan Boundary located east of I-5 to be specific Urban Growth Boundary. 6. On October 25, 2011, the City of Springfiel recommended approval of proposed PAPA provided an agreement between the City and the County to address the concerns of the Springfield Utility Board (SUB) about protecting the Cityed as part of the amendment. 7. On March 13, 2012, the elected officials of the City, the County and the City of Eugene, conducted the initial public hearing of the joint elected officials on this proposal, SUB staff provided testimony in opposition to this proposal if specific provisions to protect drinking water were not included as a part of the amendment. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (Metro Plan Boundary) Page 1 {00032029;2} I:\wdocs\gcfiles\PW-LM\12-GC184\00028978.DOCX 8. City and County representatives have met on several occasions to discuss t preserving its existing authority in the Metro Plan regarding decisions in the land between the UGB and Metro Plan Boundary in order to protect drinking water. 9. As a result of these conversations, the City and County have agreed that it is in the long-term interest of both governments and their respective constituents to establish a logical relationship between the Metro Plan Boundary and the Rural Comprehensive Plan Boundary. 10. Springfield Utility Board (SUB) wellhead protection areas outside of the City UGB have been delineated by SUB and certified by the Oregon Health Authority pursuant to OAR chapter 333, Division 61, by the Public Health Division of the Oregon Health Authority under Certificate Number 2, and, pursuant to OAR 660-023-0140 (5)(a) are eligible for recognition and inclusion on adopted Goal 5 inventories as a significant groundwater resource. 11. The parties now agree that a Boundary based upon would provide the desired logical relationship, with further agreement joint governance over the sensitive time of travel zones mapped on the Springfield Drinking Water Protection Plan that are within the present Metro Plan boundary until such time as a drinking water protection plan is in place. Such areas are shown on Exhibit A . 12. The parties further agree that in order to protect the source, certain areas outside the current UGB but within the sensitive time of travel zones should be evaluated for inclusion within the UGB. 13. ORS 190.010 and the Lane County Home Rule Charter provide that units of local governments may enter into agreements for the performance of any or all functions and activities that a party to the agreements, its officers or agents, have authority to perform. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, City and County agree as follows: Section 1: In partnership the City and County jointly agree as follows: A. submit to the County a PAPA application to recognize that the sensitive time of travel zones and wellhead protection areas outside of the City UGB as delineated by SUB and certified by the Oregon Health Authority may constitute a significant Goal 5 groundwater resource entitled to inclusion in the applicable comprehensive plan inventory and to protection. The County agrees to dedicate resources and process such INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (Metro Plan Boundary) Page 2 {00032029;2} I:\wdocs\gcfiles\PW-LM\12-GC184\00028978.DOCX application, when submitted, with priority. In its discretion, the County may direct that the City and SUB shall prepare and submit a plan for protection of the resource so identified or recognized, as the City and SUB deem necessary pursuant to Section 3.C., and the County agrees to dedicate resources and process such a plan, when submitted, with priority. B. Effective as of the date the County obtains final approval (which is defined to include adoption of identical ordinances by all governing bodies participating in the decision) of its proposed PAPA to relocate the Plan Boundary as described in Recital 5 of this Agreements existing decision-making authority over the sensitive time of travel zones depicted on Exhibit A will remain in effect. For any subsequent PAPA application located in the sensitive time of travel zones depicted on Exhibit A, City and County shall utilize the decision-making authority and process the City previously held under Chapter IV of the Plan as codified in Springfield Development Code Sections 5.14-105 through 5.14-155, Lane Code Chapter 12.200-12.245 and further modified by Section 2:A. of this agreement. C. The City and County shall exercise joint decision making authority over adoption or and on a drinking water protection plan to protect that resource or any amendment to such drinking water protection plan for the term of this Agreement, as further provided in Section 1:D., below. D. The parties further agree that additional comprehensive plan findings and policies to be considered by the decision makers, as applicable, are: 1. Metro Plan, The Fundamental Principles Chapter of the Metro Plan including Metropolitan Goals, Environmental Resources, paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4; 2. Metro Plan, Metropolitan Goals, Public Facilities, paragraph 1; 3. Metro Plan, Environmental Resources Element, Agricultural Lands (Goal 3), Policies 1-4; 4. Metro Plan, Environmental Resources Element, Riparian Corridors Wetlands and Wildlife Habitat (Goal 5), Policy 8; 5. Metro Plan, Environmental Resources Element, Mineral and Aggregate Resources (Goal 5), findings 12, 13 and 14; 6. Metro Plan, Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors and Waterways Element, Goal and Policies D5, D6 and D 10; 7. Metro Plan, Public Facilities and Services Element, Policy G3; 8. Metro Plan, Public Facilities and Services Element, Services to Development with the Urban Growth Boundary: Water, Findings 11, 12 and 13, Policies 9, 10, 11 and 12; 9. Metro Plan, Public Facilities and Services Element, Locating and Managing Public Facilities Outside the Urban Growth Boundary, Finding 36; INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (Metro Plan Boundary) Page 3 {00032029;2} I:\wdocs\gcfiles\PW-LM\12-GC184\00028978.DOCX 10. Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan, Goal 5 Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources, Mineral and Aggregate Resources, Policies 1-11; 11. Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan, Goal 5 Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources, Water Resources, Policies 1-4; 12. Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan, Goal 6 Air, Water and Land Resources, Water Quality, Policies 1-7. This joint authority under Section 1 shall remain in effect so long as the Plan Boundary PAPA is not reversed or remanded on appeal, provided that the joint authority described in Section 1:B. and D. shall cease once a drinking water protection plan for the sensitive time of travel zones and wellhead protection areas delineated by SUB and certified by the Oregon Health Authority obtains final approval and the joint decision making authority over the SUB groundwater inventory and protection under Section 1:C. shall continue unless the parties mutually agree to termination or modification. Section 2: In partnership with the City, the County agrees to: A.Provide referral notice to the City of any PAPA application that is proposed within the sensitive time of travel zones as depicted on Exhibit A. All referrals shall occur within ten (10) days of the PAPA application or initiation date. Upon receiving referral notice the City, at its discretion, may, within 21 days of the Notice from the County, elect to not participate in the PAPA decision making process as described in Sections 1:B., C. and D. of this Agreement by notifying the County in writing. If the City does not participate in the PAPA decision making process, the County shall be the sole decision maker utilizing the process and applying criteria as set forth in Section 1:B. and D. of this Agreement. If City does participate in the PAPA decision making process, it shall remain a decision maker with the County utilizing the process and applying criteria set forth in Section 1:B. and D. of this Agreement and the PAPA shall not be approved unless both the City and County governing bodies each approve the PAPA application. B. Devote appropriate resources to evaluate and process, with priority, the drinking water protection plan and land use regulations set forth in Section 3:C of this Agreement. Section 3: In partnership with the County, City shall: A. Devote appropriate resources to evaluate and process, with priority, the County proposal to amend the Boundary B. When ready, initiate an Urban Growth Boundary amendment to include within the UGB all areas that are located within the sensitive time of travel zones as depicted on Exhibit A. For purposes of this A a notice of proposed amendment to DLCD. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (Metro Plan Boundary) Page 4 {00032029;2} I:\wdocs\gcfiles\PW-LM\12-GC184\00028978.DOCX C. Allocate planning staff resources (in collaboration with SUB) sufficient to prepare for hearings before the Planning Commissions and Governing bodies on an application to recognize and inventory the sensitive time of travel zones and wellhead protection areas delineated by SUB and certified by the Oregon Health Authority as a significant groundwater resource under Goal 5, and any drinking water protection plan and land use regulations the City considers necessary to be made applicable to land outside the UGB east of I-5 and within the sensitive time of travel zones and wellhead protection areas, to protect such resource. Section 4: Both parties agree that the 1986 Urban Transition Agreement between the parties does not apply to lands within the sensitive time of travel zones not presently within the City Except as modified by this Agreement, these areas remain the jurisdictional responsibility of Lane County until the property is brought into the UGB. Section 5: This Agreement may be amended or terminated only upon the mutual agreement of both parties. Section 6: Should any court of competent jurisdiction determine that a section or part of a section of this agreement is invalid, such invalidity shall not impair the effect or validity of the remaining sections or parts of sections. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD: LANE COUNTY: ______________________________ ______________________________ Gino Grimaldi, City Manager Liane Richardson, County Administrator INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (Metro Plan Boundary) Page 5 {00032029;2} I:\wdocs\gcfiles\PW-LM\12-GC184\00028978.DOCX