HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/04/2013 Work SessionJOINT ELECTED
THE
AND LANE COUNTY
MINUTES OF T14E
IALS WORK SESSION OF
1GF1ELD CITY COUNCIL,
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
RD OF COMMISSIONERS
SAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2013
A joint elected officials' work session with the City of Springfield, City of Eugene and Lane County
was held in the Springfield Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday,
m
November 4, 2013 at 6:00 p with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Mayor Lundberg welcomed everyone to Springfield City Hall and op
Springfield City Council.
Mayor Piercy opened the meeting of the Eugene City Council.
Commissioner Leiken opened the meeting of the Lane County Board
Present from Springfield were Mayor Christine Lundberg and Comic
Ralston, Woodrow and Brew. Springfield City Manager Gino Grimal
were also present.
Present from Eugene were Mayor Kitty Piercy and Councilors Brown,
Syrett and Pryor. Councilor Taylor was absent. Eugene City Manager
were also present.
Present from Lane County were Board Chair Leiken and Commiss
Commissioner Bozievich was absent (excused). Planning Manager
staff were also present.
1. Amendments to Chapter IV of the Eugene - Springfield
Plan).
City Planner Mark Metzger presented the staff report on this item. He
Lane County and Alissa Hansen from the City of Eugene. He also intr
Springfield City Attorney's office. The planning staffs and legal coups
Lane County had worked together for a long time and had prepared an
Metro Plan for the purpose of implementing ORS 197.304. The prop(
jurisdiction's role in future Metro Plan amendments and amendments i
the meeting of the
Commissioners.
•s VanGordon, Wylie, Moore,
and other Springfield staff
mka, Poling, Clark, Evans,
Ruiz and other Eugene staff
Farr, Sorenson and Stewart.
Laird and other Lane County
Area General Plan (Metro
itroduced Keir Miller from
uced Lauren King from the
for Eugene, Springfield and
idments to Chapter IV of the
;d amendments clarified each
related documents.
ORS 197.304 (HB 3337) established separate Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) for Eugene and
Springfield and was the impetus for the Springfield 2030 Plan and the Envision Eugene planning
initiatives. As these planning efforts were readied for adoption, amendments to Chapter IV were
needed to clarify which governing bodies would participate in decision making given the
establishment of separate UGBs. The most significant changes to Chapter IV of the Metro Plan were:
Three types of Metro Plan amendments are established: Type I whi
city alone; Type II which requires the participation of the home city
amendments requires the participation of all three jurisdictions.
may be enacted by the home
d Lane County; and Type III
November 4, 2013
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield
City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 2 of 7
• The proposed amendments remove references to Metro Plan amendments with "regional impact."
Removal of the regional impact language does not change similar language found in Chapter VI of
the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP) which
provides for multi - jurisdictional review of public facility projects which have a significant impact
on serving more than one jurisdiction.
• When governing bodies do not reach consensus on a Metro Plan
amendments would send unresolved decisions to the Chair of the
and one or both of the Mayors of Eugene and Springfield for resc
governing bodies are participating in the decision.
The Springfield Planning Commission conducted a joint public hearing
amendments with Eugene and Lane County on October 15, 2013. Fad
recommend approval of the amendments with certain recommended ch
incorporated in to the Proposed Chapter IV Amendments. Staff noted,
recommendation to include timelines, that: (1) there was no statutory ti
amendments; (2) a timeframe might unnecessarily restrict the process c
there was really no enforcement mechanism for the existing timelines.
recommended the inclusion of such timelines. Council was being prese
consideration: one including the timeline language and one without. It
the two ordinances before final action.
Mayor Piercy said she would like to point out that each jurisdiction
working on for this topic, although each had commonalities.
Mr. Metzger said on October 15, the respective Planning Commissions
changes. Each Planning Commission met individually, deliberated and
staffs and elected officials about the changes they would like to see in 1
most of the recommended changes and integrated them into the draft of
key change staff did not initially put in related to timelines for processi
Staff had recommended removing references to timelines from Chaptei
Commissions from Eugene and Springfield recommended restoring so]
ordinances were put together for Springfield: one with the timelines an
read the two sentences that made the difference. During tonight's work
an agreement about whether or not to reference timelines in the Chapte
that one difference, the ordinances were substantively identical.
Mayor Lundberg noted that Springfield was the only entity with two
vent, the proposed
of County Commissioners
depending on how many
on the Chapter IV
of the Commissions voted to
nges. These changes were
rith respect to the
aeline for comprehensive plan
'the decision makers; and (3)
Eugene staff had not
Red two draft ordinances for
nay be necessary to reconcile
three documents they were
net and considered the same
nade recommendations to their
e draft document. Staff took
linances being presented. One
g Metro Plan amendments.
IV. The Planning
e form of timelines. Two
one without timelines. He
session, they hoped to come to
IV amendments. Other than
on the table.
It was noted that the Eugene packet was printed before the revised ordinance from Springfield was
complete. Staff had provided both options at their places this evening. Eugene's original packet had
the pre - Planning Commission version due to Charter requirements for noticing.
Mr. Miller said the updated packet in front of the Eugene City Council (showed the recommendation
from the Eugene Planning Commission which did not include the timelines.
November 4, 2013
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield
City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 3 of 7
Mayor Lundberg said before going into the public hearing, it would be
version of the ordinance.
Mr. Metzger said that was the goal. In the existing Development Code,
jurisdictions to adopt a substantively identical ordinance for a Metro PI
Other than the section of the timelines, the rest of the ordinance was th,
end of the work session and public hearing, they would have an identic
Doing this would prepare the way to move forward on other things. Ch
amendment process for the Metro Plan, Refinement Plan, Functional P
regional and community documents. The changes proposed this evenin
Services and Facilities Plan as it had its own chapter on how to amend
Mr. Metzger said they were moving from a difficult classification syste
amendments which just included Types I and II, to a system with Type
allow one jurisdiction to make a decision alone, Type II would require
decision and Type III would require all three jurisdictions to make a de
was more of a common sense approach. The proposal was that all three
approve amendments to the common urban growth boundary (UGB) th
UGB or Metro Plan Boundary that crossed 1 -5. The home city and Lane
UGB or Plan boundary amendments east of I -5 (Springfield) or west of
further. He referred to a map showing the three areas that were within e
limits and UGBs, and within Metro Plan boundary. The different areas
be involved in the decision making process.
Mr. Metzger spoke regarding amendments to a regional transportation
facilities plan and the criteria for those amendments and who would be
example. The first step would be to classify the type of amendment, the
making process. He discussed `regional impact' and said there was lane
Plan that covered water, wastewater, sewer and other basic utilities, am
example, there could be an instance where something in Springfield mi
stormwater facilities that also served Eugene. In that type of instance, t
subject to joint review by Eugene, Springfield and Lane County. He sp
resolution. In the current language, if there was a conflict within the de
conflict would be taken to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC).
language so the Mayors and Board Chair would work together to try to
no consensus, the Mayors and Board Chair would meet with staff to we
Commissioner Farr asked if there had been a conflict.
Board Chair Leiken said the last conflict was regarding Delta Sand
Springfield did choose to opt out leaving it to just Eugene and Lane
commonplace.
to have only one
he criteria was for the three
n amendment to be approved.
same. Staff hoped that at the
I ordinance for adoption.
pter IV described the
ns, and other important
would not affect the Public
iat particular document.
for types of plan
H and III. Type I would
ojurisdictions to make a
,ion. The new classification
governing bodies would
R was shared along 1 -5, or for a
County would participate in
I -5 (Eugene). He explained
rch city s limits, outside city
letermined in part who would
ystem plan or a regional public
nvolved. He provided an
i move forward in the decision
rage in the Public Facilities
protection of services. As an
ht have an impact on
e amendment would be
ke regarding conflict
ision making process the
'he proposal was to change the
esolve disputes. If there was
-k out the solution.
Gravel. In that situation,
mtv. Conflicts were not
Mr. Metzger said the intent was to simplify conflict resolution and put it in the hands of the parties
directly involved. He spoke regarding timelines and the current language which had a timeline, and the
new language that did not have timelines. The Eugene and Springfield Planning Commissions
recommended restoring some timeline language. Eugene had removed the timeline language from
November 4, 2013
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield
City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 4 of 7
their ordinance and Springfield had added it back into the ordinance.
needed to be resolved so they were coming forward with a common
Councilor Ralston said he understood the timeline aspect. Without a
indefinitely. Developers needed some certainty so that was a good r(
the public hearing, that
ine, something could go on
for having it in there.
Councilor Brown asked why staff had chosen originally to remove the timelines
Mr. Metzger said there was no statutory requirement for timelines as there were for other planning
processes. In those other planning processes, the developer did have the right to know. In the context
of Comprehensive Plan amendments, the State had left it open. Timeframes might unnecessarily
restrict the ability of the cities and elected officials to process things thoroughly. Many of the
legislative plan amendments initiated over the last several years had gone beyond six months.
Sometimes, it was unavoidable due to scheduling the jurisdictions to meet. Currently, there was no
enforcement mechanism regarding the timelines in the Metro Plan
Councilor Brown said it made sense (not to have timelines) especially when they had complex
changes which could take longer than six months in order to do a good job.
Mr. Metzger said they would not remove the 120 days developers needled to get a decision and move
ahead on projects.
Councilor Brew said in some land use decisions, there were consequences for not making a decision in
a timely manner. He asked if there were consequences in this situation.)
Mr. Metzger said there were no consequences in the current Metro Plan language for these type of
amendments. There was no statutory step to enforce a timeline since there was no requirement for a
timeline. When a community made a policy, they tried to keep those timelines in good faith. If the
Councils and Commissions were committed to act in good faith and doing the job right, there was no
need for a timeline.
Councilor Brew asked if including timelines in the Metro Plan could open it up for legal action.
Mr. Metzger said in the current development codes, there was permission to modify the timeline or
process by agreement of the participating jurisdictions. In the future, if they saw they weren't going to
meet a certain timeline, they could meet as joint officials to modify the (timeline. They would not
likely be exposed legally.
Mr. Miller said because there was no State provision, there was no grounds of legal action so it was
not likely an issue. Each jurisdiction had land use codes that included language specific to the timeline
waivers for government issued plan amendments only, but not for citizen initiated amendments. One
of the reasons the Lane County Planning Commission didn't recommend the timelines was that the
majority of Metro Plan amendments were initiated by the jurisdictions.
Board Chair Leiken said that explained it well. Today, they were looking to amend *Chapter IV, which
was not site specific. If looking at an amendment that was site specific, it would fall under the code
section of 120 days. He recommended they leave out the timelines. Because the cities and County
November 4, 2013
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield
City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 5 of 7
were required to follow SB 100, it was impossible to meet a timeline for certain actions. If each city
wanted to have them, they would need to create a separate Comp Plan. I Timelines would cause more
harm in the short term for these types of amendments. Anything that had to go through the
Department of Land and Conservation Development (DLCD) would nit get done within a timeline.
Mr. Metzger said there could be amendments that could be site specific. He explained. In those cases,
they could be processed in a timeline. Legislative amendments generally took more time.
Councilor Poling asked if there was any thought of adding language about a mutually agreed upon
extension of those dates for complex issues.
Mr. Metzger referred to the wording being proposed. There was policy in each jurisdiction's
development code that allowed timelines or processes to be modified fir government initiated
amendments.
Councilor Pryor said there were potentially two problems. The first
short because of the complexity. The other problem was an amendm
got resolved. The more likely problem was that the amendments cot
things going into limbo. Instead of having a timeline to prevent that,
staff would get back to the elected bodies to provide a status report. !
timelines, but including language for a check -back.
Councilor Syrett said she felt that any Metro Plan amendment initiated
into limbo as they would like to see it completed. With three jurisdicti(
could extend for a long time and having a timeline could help move thi
were separating those things out it wasn't as much of an issue. She woi
in timelines that weren't required and had no enforcement mechanism.
opportunity for confusion and interference in a process that served no I
check -in process, but not a strict timeline.
that a timeline could be too
that went into limbo and never
r't get done in time rather than
y could include language that
would prefer removing the
thejurisdiction wouldn't go
working on something, it
s along; however, since they
worry more about keeping
at could provide an
)ose. She liked the idea of a
Mr. Goodwin said with government initiated amendments, there wouldlalways be a government
initiator who would be more than happy to continue to progress to an agreement by keeping in touch
with the other parties involved.
Councilor Moore asked if there was anything in the agreement that said the jurisdictions would work
together in good faith. She could see one jurisdiction wanting something to go forward and another
that didn't and holding up the process.
Mr. Metzger said there was nothing in the Plan at this time, but language could be added that "Metro
Plan amendments would be processed by each jurisdiction in good faith ".
Councilor Moore said that could be helpful for future elected bodies.
Councilor Clark said these were government initiated, but many things relied on getting things done
efficiently. They were now in the seventh year of their new urban growth boundary (UGB) in Eugene
and it was still not completed. He would be in favor of a set timeline.
November 4, 2013
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield
City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 6 of 7
Board Chair Leiken noted an amendment in the past that involved a lot lof conflict. Since then, there .
hadn't been an issue where onejurisdiction tried to stop another jurisdiction from moving forward, in
part because of some language changes made at that time. He noted the time it took to get changes
made in order to get PeaceHealth RiverBend in Springfield as an example. He felt they didn't want to
put themselves in a bind, plus there was no enforcement.
Commissioner Farr said the nature of some people was to drag things out in hopes it would go away.
He was concerned about the possibility of a third party lawsuit that could halt a project. He asked if
there was a possibility of a project going away if it didn't meet the timeline.
Mr. Metzger said they currently had timelines with no enforcement and some things did get delayed.
Commissioner Farr said a timeline was great if there was enforcement.
Mr. Metzger said it was helpful to hear objections from the other party in the beginning in order to
address those from the start. There was always a possibility of failure of an amendment if no
agreement could be reached, with or without a timeline.
Commissioner Farr said in the future it could be issue.
Councilor Ralston said he was satisfied with the explanation and was fine removing timeline.
Commissioner Stewart said most recently Lane County initiated a Metro Plan amendment regarding
the co- terminous boundary with Springfield's UGB. That process took in excess of two years and not
due to any one jurisdiction dragging their feet. If there was a 120 -day timeline, it could have signaled
that process had gone past that date. This was a very complicated process and a lot of work was done
between the City of Springfield, Springfield Utility Board and the County. He was hesitant to put in
timelines because these amendments were often very complicated. He said in the nine years he had
served, they had tried to move things along the best they could. They had limited staff who worked
very hard.
Mayor Piercy said perhaps a 120 -day check -in would be more appropriate than a timeline. That didn't
put a limit on when something had to be completed.
Councilor Brew said he felt that if they included the extension process in their individual documents,
they should have it in the shared Metro Plan as well.
Mayor Lundberg said no one initiated something in a frivolous manner, but with a goal and purpose in
mind. She was fine with check -in points as long as it was not burdensome on staff. Sometimes
constituents did ask about the process. She didn't want to include specific timelines. She referred to
the process they went through for the co- tenninous boundary and the time it took.
Mr. Metzger asked if there was consensus of setting a 120 -day check -in and leaving off the timeline.
Board Chair Leiken asked if the check -in would be done administratively or if it needed to be with the
joint elected officials. He felt it should just be done administratively among staff.
November 4, 2013
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield
City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 7 of 7
Councilor Pryor said a simple communication memo to the elected
Councilor Brown noted that if anyone saw a problem after receiving
be called.
Mayor Piercy said 180 days would be more reasonable for a check -in.
Mr. Metzger asked if they could take care of this administratively. Y
Consensus was to go forward with the ordinance without timelines.
be included into the implementing development codes with all three
language in their respective codes.
Mayor Lundberg confirmed that the ordinance with no timeline:
public hearing.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Lundberg adjourned the Springfield City Council at 6:58
Mayor Piercy adjourned the Eugene City Council at 6:58 pm.
Commissioner Leiken adjourned the Lane County Commissions
Minutes Recorder
Amy Sowa
City Recorder
Attest:
GC
City Recor er
could suffice.
memo, a work session could
check -in of 180 days could
diction adopting identical
rthe