Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/18/2013 Work SessionCity of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY. MARCH 18. 2013 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room. 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon; on Monday; March 18, 2013 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore; Ralston, Woodrow and Brew. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. 1. Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan (SRP) Urbanization Element: Comparing Potential Employment Opportunity Sites to Address 20 -Year Commercial and Industrial Land Needs (Metro Plan Amendment File No. LRP 2009- 00014). Planning Supervisor Linda Pauly presented the staff report on this item. Adding suitable large -site industrial land to the City's land base was one important component in growing and diversifying Springfield's economy to increase city and regional prosperity. Expanding Springfield's UGB would increase the region's supply of employment land and would require development of public infrastructure (i.e., transportation, wastewater and stormwater facilities) to support land development activity and the infrastructure required to serve specific sites. The cost to plan and build infrastructure to serve new sites added to Springfield's UGB would be substantial. Without availability of adequate public infrastructure and services, the industries Springfield aspired to attract would have little incentive to locate here as noted in Attachment 4 of the agenda packet. In order to justify bringing new employment land into the UGB, Statewide Planning Goal 14 required the City to compare the relative costs, advantages and disadvantages of alternative UGB expansion areas with respect to the provision of public facilities and services. As one necessary step towards completing this requirement, Springfield engineering and transportation staff prepared rough "planning level" cost of infrastructure estimates to compare the cost and difficulty of extending the three City services to each study area (Attachment 2 of the agenda packet). These estimates were in 2009 dollars and likely to be exceeded at the actual time of development. The cost estimates to extend services to each area were high so it was likely that most types of development in any new area would require a mix of public and private investment to build the necessary infrastructure. A key policy issue for Springfield would be how to reach a balanced mix of public and private investment to provide infrastructure to one or more new opportunity sites, and which sites were most likely to present opportunities to create the highest value of development and return on investment. Ms. Pauly said it was important for Springfield to have its own Comprehensive Plan and to have policies in place to establish the community's visions, values and aspirations, and a clear roadmap for how they would be translated into community investment strategies, partnerships and development action. In this time of resource scarcity, the City and our region would need all the tools available to successfully attract public and private capital investment to our community. The federal and state funding entities, philanthropic organizations, private capital investment and private development interests were scrutinizing all of the competing proposals they received to determine if the city or region had a good Comprehensive Plan adopted that addressed the 21" Century needs and opportunities, and that the project requested implemented their adopted plan, the project was aligned with federal, state or philanthropic organizations' mission and priorities and there was public support City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 18, 20130 Page 2 available to support the private investment. The Springfield 2030 Plan was building a foundation for a long -term community investment strategy, one that would support local objectives and one that would strengthen the whole region. The work Council was doing now could have profound impact here and beyond. During the January work session; Council discussed the economic element goals, policies and implementation strategies designed to direct and encourage growth to occur within Springfield's existing employment, commercial and mixed -use districts and corridors and in new opportunity sites that would be added to the Springfield urban growth boundary (UGB). This could be thought of as a two - pronged growth strategy for Springfield: the first focused on growing our employment and commerce capacity within the structure of the existing community framework; and the second supported adding one or more new growth areas to the City's UGB to supply employment opportunity sites that would give industries; especially private industries that required sites larger than 20 acres, a potential launching pad in Springfield. Creating these opportunities would support diversification and growth of the economy. Ms. Pauly said during the February work session, staff provided the Council with maps of the five UGB study areas with suitable sites that met the criteria governing UGB expansion. They were now in the process of comparing the sites. The agenda packet included estimated costs and difficulty with extending public infrastructure specifically public transportation, wastewater and stormwater systems to the five areas. Tonight they wanted to look at how to match Springfield's aspiration with the realities of our land base and the City's capacity to provide urban services. She referred to Attachment 2, page 1 of the agenda packet which was the summary of costs of service. She also noted Attachment 3, page 2 of the agenda packet which showed how the five study areas matched up with the prime industrial land characteristics that were identified by the State's Industrial Land Certification Program. If Springfield wanted to have shovel ready sites available and participate in the certification program, these were the characteristics that would be needed by the various industries. Mayor Lundberg asked that Attachment 3 could be made larger next time it was presented. Ms. Pauly said they would provide a larger chart at the next work session. She noted that this presentation was to inform the Council. A decision would be made much later following a public hearing process where other sites might be considered. Mr. Grimaldi said everything was relative in terms of cost. There would be areas that looked more attractive in terms of the cost of infrastructure and other services. There were also other factors that were required by law that Council would need to consider. Mayor Lundberg said it was hard to figure out what they wanted when looking at the comparison of costs. She referred to the study from ECONorthwest about the jobs of the future and industry. She was trying to match up industries with sites. She would like to see that match up on some type of document. Mr. Grimaldi said that was a good point. The Council would be looking at a lot of variables that would need to come together. Community Development Manager John Tamulonis said the information before Council only included the cost and number of acres. Staff could look at what they could expect for job generation in the different areas and give Council an idea of types of businesses that might come in so they could have a sense of what they were investing in. That could also include the value of the land.and the buildings on the land. If there were larger sites in the Gateway area and they continued to have campus City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 18, 2013 Page 3 industrial in those areas, staff could show what had happened in the past, the cost per square foot and what type of investment would be needed. Councilor Moore said it would be helpful to know the cost per acre of developable land and the infrastructure needed. She wanted to know about the number of property owners involved in each study area. That could factor into this as well. Councilor Brew asked Mr. Tamulonis if the information he would be providing would include the cost of land per acre in each area and the cost to get it to a developable standard. Mr. Tamulonis said not the latter, but he could provide the cost of land per acre. They could look at the current value of the properties and the number of jobs it could create. He discussed the different types of development and how the values would differ. It would provide a snapshot of how the land could be developed over a period of time. Councilor Brew said there were so many matrixes it was difficult to determine the overall cost and benefit. He referred to Attachment 2, page 1 of the agenda packet showing the difficulty for different infrastructure (transportation. stormwater. etc). The areas that had rated easier on Attachment 2 were listed as not viable on the bottom row of page 2, Attachment 3. He asked how the two interrelated. Ms. Pauly said Attachment 3 was showing which sites were shovel ready with adequate infrastructure. This chart showed the competitiveness of these properties for industry. Transportation Manager Tom Boyatt said another way to look at it was that the first chart showed what it took to get a green box in the second chart. Councilor Brew said some would be easier to change from red to green Mayor Lundberg said anything staff could do to match up the industries that would most likely fit in each area would be beneficial. Expanding the UGB wisely in a direction to attract industry, and have community support, was one of the biggest decisions they would be making. She felt they didn't yet have all of the information they needed. They wanted to see what could be complimentary and what they could attract. Councilor Brew said it might help to see a staff recommendation and the reasons regarding each site. Councilor VanGordon referred to Attachment 3, page 1 of the agenda packet, the Oregon Industrial Site Certification. He asked if we had an idea how the study sites stacked up to other areas that were developing in the State. Ms. Pauly said some communities had shovel ready sites, but not the right size. There was a shortage of sites over 20 acres statewide. Councilor VanGordon said information about how they compared to other communities sites would be useful. He asked about Attachment 2, page I regarding transportation difficulty at the Seavey Loop site. He asked if the costs would go down if the County developed Goshen. Mr. Boyatt said it was difficult to say because he was not sure what the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and Lane County had in mind regarding the interchange improvement. When estimating the costs, staff looked at the I -5 and 30`n Avenue intersection, the proximity of the railroad City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 18, 2013 Page 4 lines and the fact there was only one way in and out of the Seavey Loop area. The costs were oriented around that interchange to access employment. Mr. Grimaldi said the time it took to make any major interchange improvement was between 15 -20 years. Mayor Lundberg pointed out they had to compete at the State level for funding for those types of projects. Development and Public Works Director Len Goodwin said as Ms. Pauly had mentioned in the past, the City didn't anticipate that any one or two sites would meet the needs. Council would likely be looking at land in each area to make up the required amount. When thinking about how to expand, they would want to consider policy questions about all five sites and focus on the vision for each. Staff could provide some assistance to break it down for analysis. Mr. Boyatt said they could also look at the sites in terms of time: short, medium or long -term. Councilor VanGordon asked Mr. Goodwin to expand on his comments further. He asked if there was a point at each site where the bigger costs kicked in, considering they looked at portions of each site. Mr. Goodwin said that was an important consideration. He used the north Springfield Highway as an example where the cost levels were lower compared to the other sites. That might be a place to concentrate first as it would be the easiest to get shovel ready, even though it had significant drainage constraints. The Council could craft a vision of expecting that site to develop in the next 5 years, another site in 10 years, another site in 15 years, etc. It was a good way to stage both the cost exposure and the orderly development. Councilor Moore referred to Attachment 4, page 1 of the agenda packet. She asked what could be done in the flood plain. She asked if they needed to take the full acreage of a site even if it was not suitable, and if acreage that was not suitable would be counted towards our total. Ms. Pauly said the City needed 640 acres of suitable land. Sites had land that was suitable and also land with constraints that went up to the river. During the public process in 2010, they received input from the Planning Commission and the public to take the whole area up to the river on those sites rather than leaving a strip of land between the UGB and the river. The land with constraints did not count towards the 640 acres. Councilor Moore asked about the constraints in the floodplain, Ms. Pauly said the City had a floodplain overlay district that would be applied which included additional rules and increased cost. In the materials from the State, floodplain was considered to be an expensive constraint for development. Industries didn't want to see a floodplain when looking for a site. Councilor Brew asked if an interchange improvement would be done to access the Seavey Loop area whether they developed 20 acres or 152 acres. He wondered if the infrastructure and costs were scalable. Mr. Goodwin said it depended on the site, but in that particular case the improvement would need to be done no matter the size of the development. The amount of development that could occur with the current transportation configuration was relatively small and may not be scalable. In some areas it City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 18, 2013 Page 5 could be scalable. Gateway already had a constrained transportation system so they may not be able to do much development in that area without additional changes. 2. Amendment of the Metro Plan Boundary East of Interstate 5 Making that Boundary Coterminus with the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary. Planning File #TYP411- 00003. Planning Manager Greg Mott presented the staff report on this item. Lane County was proposing to move the Metro Plan Boundary east of 1 -5 so that it would be coterminous with Springfield's Urban Growth Boundary. This action involved approximately 8,128 acres all of which would be integrated into the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan as a direct result of this proposal. The elected officials of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County conducted a joint public hearing on this proposal at Harris Hall on March 13, 2012. Subsequent to that hearing, the Springfield City Council conducted a work session on September 24, 2012 for the purpose of discussing public testimony on this matter and to review alternatives to the County's proposal developed in response to that testimony. The preparation and refinement of these alternatives occurred as a result of numerous meetings involving staff from Springfield, Lane County and Springfield Utility Board, as well as the timely and thoughtful participation of several Lane County and Springfield elected officials. Although this proposal had undergone an unusually lengthy period of discussion and problem solving, the most viable strategy to emerge from this effort is a three-party, Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA, Attachment 4 of the agenda packet). The draft IGA included various actions and time lines that captured many of the issues and divergent outcomes originally perceived as insolvable and placed them, and their solutions, into a context and format that was uniformly supported by each of the participants. The Lane County Board considered the position staff had come to as shown in the IGA (Attachment 4 of the agenda packet) and agreed in principle to the key features of the IGA. The key elements of the IGA included the following: • Relocation of the Metro Plan boundary along its entirety, east of I -5, from the current location to Springfield's Urban Growth Boundary line; • Recognition that SUBS wellhead protection areas outside the City s UGB are eligible for recognition and inclusion on adopted Goal 5 inventories [by Lane County]; • Preservation of the City's joint governance [with Lane County] over any PAPA in sensitive time of travel zones within the present Plan boundary; • The City, in coordination with SUB will promptly submit a PAPA application to recognize sensitive time of travel zones and wellhead protection areas outside the City's UGB as sites eligible to be included as Goal 5 ground water resource inventories. • In addition to official designation of the Goal 5 inventories, the City may submit a drinking water protection plan to provide additional protection of these Goal 5 inventories; • City will participate as a joint decision -maker for any amendments to SUBS groundwater resources or to any amendments to a plan that protects these resources. In addition to the role of this IGA in the jurisdictional transfer of land from the Metro Plan to the Lane Rural Comprehensive Plan, the findings in Attachment 3 of the agenda packet addressed the requirements, standards and criteria that must be satisfied in order for the Council to proceed with a motion of approval for this proposed Metro Plan amendment. Mr. Mott noted that several Lane County staff were in the audience. Lane County wanted the cities of Eugene and Springfield to adopt the ordinance before they adopted the ordinance. He pointed out that City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 18, 2013 Page 6 the map in the packet (Attachment 3, page 6) included a whited out area through the center of the map. A corrected map had been prepared and distributed to the Mayor and Council. He discussed the map showing the UGB and the Metro Plan Boundary and how it would change if the proposed ordinance was adopted. Councilor Ralston asked if the change left the City in control of the area outside the UGB. Mr. Mott said the City's control would be similar to what we had today. Currently if there was a proposed plan amendment in that area, the City would have a say. With the change, the City would only be involved if it was in a sensitive time of travel zone. Councilor Moore asked if the long range plan was for Springfield to change our UGB to take in those wellhead areas. Mr. Mott said that would be up to the Council. Staff had asked the people at the Department of Land Conservation and Development (LCDC) and land use attorneys if land could be included in the expansion of a UGB that was not going to be used for other purposes. It was very unusual, although not out of the question. The primary reason to expand the UGB was to have land for urban uses, industrial or housing, etc. If those areas were brought into our UGB for the sole purpose of having the drinking water resources within our UGB, it could be tougher to defend that action. That position could be tempered, if not through a rule change or statute change, through a different review. Plenty of cities had brought in open spaces for their UGB and preserved it for open spaces. In reading the rule, it could provide a reasonable argument, but some may disagree. Development and Public Works Director Len Goodwin said in addition some of the areas being considered for expansion for the UGB did include areas with wellfields. They had talked about adding parks and open space land in the South Mil Race area, which was almost all in a time of travel zone. Mr. Mott said this action didn't affect those other activities. That land and its attributes existed whether it was in the Plan Boundary or the Comprehensive Plan. The legal structure for land use in that area was pretty close and the law didn't change. If we didn't have an urban reserve, the status of the land expanded for industrial purposes went through the same test. It either qualified or it didn't. Councilor Brew said currently in order to make any changes to the land between the UGB and the Metro Plan Boundarv, all three jurisdictions (City of Springfield, City of Eugene and Lane County) had to be involved. By making the boundaries coterminus, only the City of Springfield and Lane County would need to be involved on the Springfield side. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Mott said that was correct. Once each city had adopted their own UGB, any subsequent amendments to each UGB was between the affected city and the County, with the exception of changes that crossed I -5. Once those amendments were adopted, there would no longer be a space between the UGB and the Metro Plan. Councilor Moore said the 1000 Friends of Oregon were opposed when this proposal was first presented. She asked if they had a basis for an appeal if this went forward. Mr. Mott said they had entered testimony in the record so had the right to appeal. Mayor Lundberg said this was on the agenda during the Regular Meeting for approval. There had been numerous meeting and this had gone through quite a process. One of the groups she wanted to be City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 18, 2013 Page 7 supportive of this was Springfield Utility Board (SUB) because of the wellhead protection. SUB did support this with the IGA and provided enough protections for the City to stay in the loop. Mr. Mott said from staffs perspective, the elements of the ordinance had not been changed since the original request, but the provisions of the IGA were now there. if there were aspects with the IGA they were uncomfortable with, Council could consider that tonight. Councilor Moore said part of the question had to do with a gravel development and land owned by Knife River which was outside Springfield's UGB, but inside the Metro Plan Boundary. There were a lot of concerns about that issue and the affect it could have on the water. She asked how well protected our water was through this PGA. Mr. Mott said that site was on a one -year time of travel zone. The IGA was preserved through at least the minimum period of time it took for the City and SUB to bring forward an inventory and a plan for the Lane County Board of Commissioner's adoption. Until then, the exact status that existed today with the Metro Plan would exist for that land and that was covered in the IGA on page 3. It would require the property owner to amend the Comp Plan and the site would need to be inventoried with the State before it could go forward. Mr. Goodwin said there were those that were concerned that this could improve the protection because currently that water source was not in any State inventory. The sand and gravel people could seek an amendment to have their resource designated as a Goal 5 resource before the inventory recognized the water resource. Mr. Mott said SUB was also updating their drinking water plan which would be brought to the Council. Staff would work with them to incorporate the applicability of the Drinking Water Protection Plan within this area as a parallel track to their update. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:57 p.m. Minutes Recorder —Amy Sowa Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: Amy So a City Rec rder