The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011 08 16 Joint Metro Plan AmendmentSupplemental Memorandum #2 Memo Date: August 5, 2011 Public Hearing Date: August 16, 2011 TO: LANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EUGENE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Keir Miller, Lane County Land Management Division SUBJECT: July 19, 2011, Continued Public Hearing on Proposed Metro Plan Boundary Amendment BACKGROUND / ISSUE Lane County is seeking to modify the boundaries of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (the Metro Plan). This action requires a Joint Hearing before the Planning Commissions of the Metro Plan partners. Lane County is also proposing four related amendments to the Rural Comprehensive Plan (RCP), which will be necessary if an amendment to the Metro Plan Boundary is adopted. These actions must be reviewed in a Public Hearing of the Lane County Planning Commission. On July 19, 2011, the Planning Commissions of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County held a joint public hearing on Lane County’s proposal. During the public hearing the commissioners heard testimony from the following parties: • Tamara Johnson – director of the Springfield Utility Board’s Water Department • Donna Robinson – private citizen • Kevin Mathews – representative for Friends of Eugene • Rodney Meyers – private citizen • Tim Marshall – representative for Knife River Corporation At the request of Mr. Mathews, the Commissions left the record open and continued the public hearing until August 16, 2011. Mr. Mathews requested that the record be kept open so that Friends of Eugene could provide additional information into the record in opposition to the proposal. At the drafting of this memo, Friends of Eugene had not submitted any additional information into the record, so a response from staff is not yet possible. The Planning Commissions also requested that staff return on the 16th with additional information and refined alternatives regarding the issue raised by the Springfield Utility Board . This additional information in presented in a memo from the City of Springfield and is included as Attachment 1. ALTERNATIVES / ACTION After closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission is asked to consider testimony entered into the record of this hearing, deliberate on the merits of the proposal and either: 1. Recommend approval, 2. Recommend modification, or 3. Recommend denial. In addition, if Alternative 1 is chosen, the Planning Commission may offer a recommendation to the Board concerning an IGA with the City of Springfield to address SUB’s concerns as outlined in Attachment 1. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Alternative 1. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 – City of Springfield memo concerning SUB issue Attachment 2 – Map: Springfield Drinking Water Protection Areas between Metro Plan Boundary and Springfield Urban Growth Boundary Attachment 3 – Testimony received by City of Springfield Staff Metro Plan Phase 1 Boundary Amendment Supplemental Memo #2 Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DATE OF HEARING: August 16, 2011 PLANNING TO: Springfield Planning Commission COMMISSION FROM: Steve Hopkins, Senior Land Use Planner TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM ITEM TITLE: IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN BY REDUCING THE TOTAL LAND AREA WITHIN THE METRO PLAN EAST OF INTERSTATE 5 AND ADOPTING A NEW METRO PLAN BOUNDARY THAT IS COTERMINUS WITH THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD’S URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AND ADOPTING SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLASUES (TYP 411-00003) ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to join with the Lane County and Eugene planning commissions in reconvening the continued public hearing of July 19, 2011 to accept additional testimony on the proposed Metro Plan amendment, close the hearing to deliberate on the merits of the proposal and either continue deliberation to a date certain or forward a recommendation of approval, modification or denial to the City Council. BACKGROUND SUMMARY On July 19, 2011 the Planning Commissions of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County held a joint public hearing on Lane County’s proposal to amend the Metro Plan boundary to become coterminous with the recently adopted Springfield urban growth boundary (UGB). At the hearing, staff from the Springfield Utility Board (SUB) expressed concern that the amendment “could unintentionally weaken Springfield’s ability to protect its drinking water source areas” located in some of the areas between Springfield’s UGB and the existing Metro Plan boundary. The Planning Commissions accepted public testimony and requested additional information from staff regarding the issue raised by SUB. The record was left open and the hearing was continued until August 16. This memo contains the requested information and a proposal to resolve the drinking water issue. ISSUE At the hearing on July 19, the Planning Commissions were presented with three options to address the drinking water issue raised by SUB. Those options were: 1. Amend the Metro Plan boundary to be coterminous with the UGB, except for the drinking water source areas. All Metro Plan policies would continue to apply in these areas remaining within the Metro Plan boundary. 2. Amend the Metro Plan boundary to be coterminous with the UGB, and create a permanent Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) that provides for the City of Springfield to be a decision-maker in all land use decisions and Rural Comprehensive Plan amendments that could impact the drinking water resource areas. 3. Amend the Metro Plan boundary to be coterminous with the UGB, and request Lane County to concurrently adopt a drinking water protection plan for SUB’s drinking water resource areas. Springfield staff recommended option #3 because it was the only option that resulted in autonomous decision- making for the county, and maintained existing levels of protection for Springfield’s drinking water. However, Lane County staff was concerned with the limited time to create a drinking water plan, and felt that option #3 was beyond the scope of this project. Attachment 1-1 DISCUSSION On July 26, 2011 staff from SUB, Lane County and Springfield met to discuss the issue of drinking water protection. Based on those discussions and the testimony received at the hearing, staff from Springfield and SUB drafted a modification of concept 2 using a temporary IGA to allow adequate time for Lane County to create and adopt a drinking water protection plan. This concept will temporarily continue the existing protections of the Metro Plan in a limited manner within a limited geographic area, as follows: a. A Post-Acknowledgment Plan Amendment (PAPA) or zone change proposal for property located within the drinking water source areas will require referral to the City of Springfield; b. The City of Springfield may choose to participate as a decision-maker if the City Council prepares and adopts findings that determine the proposal could impact the water quality or quantity within the drinking water source area; c. The review by the City Council of Springfield will be limited to compliance with Goal 5 (Natural Resources) Goal 6 (Air, Water and Land Resources Quality) and Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Services) as they apply to the protection of the drinking water source area; d. If the City of Springfield participates as a decision-maker, such participation shall parallel the procedure specified in Lane Code and the Lane Rural Comprehensive Plan regarding zone changes and comprehensive plan amendments, including fact-finding hearings by the planning commission as a prelude to forwarding a recommendation to the Springfield City Council, and a joint hearing of the City Council and Board of Commissioners but limiting review to the provisions cited in “c.” above. Both jurisdictions must approve the proposal. The modified option is sequenced as follows: 1. Amend the Metro Plan boundary to make it coterminous with the Springfield UGB. 2. Adopt an IGA between the city and county. 3. The IGA will sunset when Lane County adopts a Drinking Water Protection plan and regulations. Staff recommends this option because it limits the city’s scope of review to impacts on the city’s drinking water source areas; addresses SUB’s responsibility to protect the drinking water; and it confers to the County the maximum amount of autonomy in the short term and complete autonomy in the long term. Options 1. Recommend approval. 2. Recommend denial. 3. Request additional information from staff. At the hearing, staff will address questions and welcomes feedback. Attachment 1-2 WILLAMETTE WELLFIELDTHURSTONWELLFIELDPLATTWELLFIELDWEYERHAEUSERWELLFIELDSP/MAIA WELLFIELDCHASE WELLFIELDI-5 WELLFIELDSPORTS WAY WELL7th & "Q" ST. WELL (RWD)S.70th STRESERVOIRSOUTH HILLSRESERVOIRS.67th STRESERVOIRS.57th STRESERVOIRWILLAMETTE HEIGHTSRESERVOIRKELLY BUTTERESERVOIRMOERESERVOIRKELLY BUTTEPUMP STATIONPUMP STATIONS.72nd STPUMP STATIONS.67th ST5th & "Q" STINTERTIESCOTT ROADINTERTIE35th STINTERTIE30th & MAIN STINTERTIEEAST SIDE PUMPSTATIONFILTRATION PLANTSLOW SAND(SUB,RWD)OUTOUTOUTOUTOUT OUTOUTOUTOUTOUTOUTOUTOUTOUTOUTOUTOUT OUTOUTOUTOUT OUTOUTOUTOUTOUTOUTOUTOUTOUTOUTOUT OUTOUTOUTOUTOUTOUTOUTOUTOUTOUTOUTOUTOUTOUTOUTOUTOUTOUTOUTOUT OUT OUTOUT OUTOUT(SUB)(SUB)(SUB)(SUB)(SUB)(SUB)(SUB)(SUB)(SUB)(SUB)(SUB)(SUB)(SUB)(SUB)JASPER MEADOWSPUMP STATION(SUB)I-5INTERTIE22nd & HENDERSONINTERTIETREATMENT PLANTFUTURE(SUB)FUTURESTEAM PLANTPUMP STATION(SUB)Attachment 2-1 Attachment 3-1 Attachment 3-2 534 SW Third Avenue, Suite 300 • Portland, OR 97204 • (503) 497-1000 • fax (503) 223-0073 • www.friends.org Southern Oregon Office • PO Box 2442 • Grants Pass, OR 97528 • (541) 474-1155 • fax (541) 474-9389 Willamette Valley Office • 220 East 11th Avenue, Suite 5 • Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 653-8703 • fax (503) 575-2416 Central Oregon Office • 115 NW Oregon Ave #21 • Bend, OR 97701 • (541) 719-8221 • fax (866) 394-3089 Celebrating Thirty-five Years of Innovation August 8, 2011 Lane County Planning Commission Lane County 125 East 8th Avenue Eugene, OR 97401 Eugene Planning Commission City of Eugene 777 Pearl Eugene, OR 97401 Springfield Planning Commission City of Springfield 255 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Re: Proposed Metro Plan boundary change Dear Planning Commissioners: 1000 Friends of Oregon is a nonprofit, charitable organization dedicated to working with Oregonians to enhance our quality of life by building livable urban and rural communities, protecting family farms and forests, and conserving natural areas. Please place these comments in the record of these proceedings, and notify us of any subsequent decisions. Before you is a proposal to remove all land beyond Springfield’s UGB – almost 13 square miles – from the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) and place it under the sole jurisdiction of Lane County. This could compromise the Metro Plan’s integrity and relevance, due to the greatly reduced land base and the cities’ loss of control of important decisions that could negatively affect them. As you evaluate this proposal, we hope you will keep in the forefront of your minds the important purposes the Metro Plan is intended to achieve. According to the LCOG website: “The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, or Metro Plan, is this metropolitan area’s comprehensive plan. The Metro Plan planning process is an inter-jurisdictional effort among the Cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County, and its policies and diagram provide guidance on how land use, natural resources, public facilities, and the local economy should be developed, designed, and/or conserved over time.” Attachment 3-3 Willamette Valley Office • 220 East 11th Avenue, Suite 5 • Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 653-8703 • fax (503) 575-2416 Page 2 The larger and more complex the planning needs of an area, the more important inter- jurisdictional planning becomes. As Oregon’s second-largest metropolitan area, it is understandable that the Eugene-Springfield area would have a regional planning structure. Regional planning offers a number of benefits. In densely populated areas, some problems cannot be solved within municipal boundaries. In addition, decisions made by one jurisdiction can have adverse impacts on other jurisdictions – as well as the environment. These impacts often spill over UGB and city boundaries. There are also valuable shared resources such as parks, rivers and open space that benefit residents throughout the area. Inter-jurisdictional planning is an effective approach to solving infrastructure and economic problems, addressing potentially negative impacts, and protecting common resources. The Metro Plan has been serving this purpose for many decades. While focused Metro Plan boundary changes intended to address specific, identified problems might be appropriate, the current proposal – which encompasses 8,182 acres for Phase One alone – seems grossly inappropriate. We strongly urge you to proceed with caution, and be sure you fully understand all the ramifications and possible untended consequences before making your recommendation. This Proposal Will Remove Checks and Balances It should be apparent that the intent of this proposal is to ensure that in the future, the county will be able to make unilateral decisions over the objections of one or both cities, regarding the subject lands. The county’s website for this proceeding states the following: “Why is Lane County undertaking this effort? Recent events, such as the “Blue Water Boats” land use decision and the inability of the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) to reach consensus on Delta Sand and Gravel Co.’s application for an expansion of their quarry operations, have brought into focus problems of jurisdictional authority within the Metro area. Specifically, Commissioners have expressed frustration about the ability of the cities to override Board decisions on county land use issues.” (emphasis added) The cities should think carefully about the wisdom of this shift in power. What the county calls “problems of jurisdictional authority” are not real problems at all. They are instead just the long- standing rights that both cities have, which allow them to participate in some important land use decisions. Rarely, one or both cities may choose to disagree with the county. That is not a “problem,” that is participation. The Metro Plan was created as a power-sharing partnership, in which each of the three jurisdictions voluntarily placed its lands under the shared jurisdiction of the other two partners. This proposal directly conflicts with the very nature of the Metro Plan, because it retains the Attachment 3-4 Willamette Valley Office • 220 East 11th Avenue, Suite 5 • Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 653-8703 • fax (503) 575-2416 Page 3 county’s powers to approve or disapprove Metro Plan amendments initiated by the cities, while removing all of the county-jurisdiction property that is subject to reciprocal restrictions. In other words, it is one-sided; Lane County is given sole authority over 8,000+ acres of land, but it gives up no authority over the other lands that are within the jurisdictions of Eugene and Springfield. If these amendments are approved, Lane County will no longer have anything at stake in the Metro Plan, in terms of affected land area, since all lands outside the cities’ UGBs would no longer be subject to the Metro Plan. Such a move would undercut the whole premise of the Metro Plan – shared authority over the lands of all the participating jurisdictions. Some may suggest to you that the cities’ interests could be protected by placing the land removed from the Metro Plan inside an “Area of Interest” via an intergovernmental agreement. However, such agreements generally provide nothing more than notification of a pending action by the county and an opportunity to comment. These are rights that the general public already enjoys. After hearing the concerns of the cities, the county would be free to proceed with its independent decision, regardless of the cities’ expressed desires. Put differently, there is nothing in an Area of Interest agreement that provides cities with any real decision-making authority. If this proposal were adopted, the authority of the cities would be reduced to that of a typical citizen, regarding the lands removed from Metro Plan. The Cities Should Consider These Three Major Concerns While the county has every right to ask for this unilateral, lopsided agreement, the cities have every right – and plenty of good reasons – to say no. Here are three major concerns we have identified, followed by a suggested revision to the proposal that would resolve them. 1. Cities Will Lose Ability To Prevent Harmful Land Use Changes. Most of the land proposed for removal from the Metro Plan is in the cities’ “backyard” – in close proximity to the homes of tens of thousands of people. If new uses were allowed with significant off-site effects, such as gravel mining, those effects could have a detrimental effect on nearby residents. The concerns of the Springfield Utility Board are an indication of this kind of effect, and while water quality is an important parameter that could be affected by development on these lands, there are others, as well. Increased noise, traffic and air quality problems often accompany poorly planned rural uses. The cities should consider retaining their current authority to say no to those occasional proposals that could harm the well being of city residents. 2. Cities Will Lose Ability To Protect Buford Park. The proposal will remove the entire Howard Buford Recreation Area from the Metro Plan, as well as the 1,270-acre Nature Conservancy acquisition that lies between the Park and the Willamette River. The Park has long been under the shared jurisdiction the county and cities, Attachment 3-5 Willamette Valley Office • 220 East 11th Avenue, Suite 5 • Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 653-8703 • fax (503) 575-2416 Page 4 and in 1994, the Howard Buford Recreation Area Master Plan was adopted as a refinement to the Metro Plan. The Park and surrounding natural areas are important regional assets and Eugene and Springfield should be at the table for master planning decisions. Under this proposal, the county could change management plans for the Park unilaterally; the cities should carefully consider whether such an arrangement would be in their citizens’ best interests. 3. Cities Will Lose Ability To Protect Future Urban Expansion Areas. The way that rural areas adjacent to a city’s UGB are used can have major implications for their future urbanization potential. If incompatible uses or excessive parcelization patterns are allowed, then the area will be much less able to meet the city’s needs down the road. Ideally, urbanizable lands are held in compatible interim uses until they are brought into the city. This is especially true when a city has limited expansion options. Springfield is highly constrained by natural barriers in nearly every direction, boxed in by two major rivers, an interstate highway, wetlands, floodplains, and rugged terrain. Wise use of what little land remains is critical. The areas proposed for removal from the Metro Plan are the last available pieces of land between the city core and the Willamette and McKenzie Rivers. As shown on the attached annotated map, many of these areas are currently under consideration for urban expansion. Springfield has prepared an Economic Opportunity Analysis that contemplates a UGB expansion to provide 640 acres of industrial lands. Even after this current round of urban expansion has concluded, Springfield would be wise to maintain control of the remaining lands by retaining them in the Metro Plan. We know of no better tool – not even an urban reserves designation – for ensuring that these lands remain as high quality urbanizable land. These areas represent the future of Springfield; they are irreplaceable and their control should not be parted with lightly. While Phase Two is not currently up for review, Eugene will face similar concerns. Wetlands, the South Hills, the Willamette River and Interstate 5 combine to constrain Eugene’s growth options and increase the need for judicious protection of what little urbanizable land remains. Suggestion: A Significantly Scaled-Back Approach We understand and sympathize with the plight of small rural landowners such as Donna Robinson, who stated at an April 21, 2011 open house that she owns “one of 4 parcels actually restricted by the RR5 Metro Plan zoning.” Our understanding is that these parcels are between 4 and 8 acres in size, and so could theoretically be divided under the county’s RR-2 zoning, except that under the Metro Plan’s RR-5 designation, they cannot be. A revised proposal could be Attachment 3-6 Willamette Valley Office • 220 East 11th Avenue, Suite 5 • Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 653-8703 • fax (503) 575-2416 Page 5 considered to amend the Metro Plan boundary to exclude these four small residential parcels, as well as others with similar characteristics. A red circle on the east end of the Metro Plan boundary is shown on the attached annotated map. We suggest that the current proposal be scaled back to remove only this area from the Metro Plan, for the following reasons: 1) Retains within the Metro Plan boundary Buford Park and the 1,270-acre Willamette Confluence Project. 2) Retains within the Metro Plan boundary all of SUB’s well fields. 3) Retains within the Metro Plan boundary all of the land that has been identified as potential industrial land in the ongoing UGB expansion process. 4) Retains within the Metro Plan boundary the last available pieces of land between the city core and the Willamette and McKenzie Rivers. 5) Removes from the Metro Plan boundary the rural residential land that is subject to the RR-5 zoning conflict, including the land owned by Donna Robinson mentioned above. 6) Removes only land that is distant from the city center, which does not abut heavily populated areas, and which is not a major resource for Springfield’s future growth needs. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. I will be in attendance at your August 16 hearing and hope that you will ask me any questions you may have about these issues. Sincerely, Mia Nelson Attachments: Springfield portion of Metro Plan map with annotations cc: Springfield City Council Springfield Utility Board Eugene City Council Ed Moore, DLCD Attachment 3-7 PROPOSED UGB EXPANSION AREA PROPOS E D UGB EXPANSI O N AREAWILLA M E T T E CONFL U E N C E PROJE C T (former Wildish propert y ) BUFORD PARK I-5 I-5 I-5 UGB UGB UGB UGB UGB UGB UGBUGB WELL FIELD WELL FIELD WELL FIELDWELL FIELD WELL FIELD PROPO S E D UGB EXPAN S I O N AREA FLOODWAY FLOOD W A Y FLOOD W A Y PARK PARK AREA THAT 1000 FRIENDS WOULD SUPPORT REMOVING FROM METRO PLAN SPRINGFIELD METRO PLAN ANNOTATED BY MIA NELSON, 1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON AUGUST 2011 Attachment 3-8 file:///S|/PC%20-%20Staff%20Reports/2011%20Planning%20Commissio...0proposed%20amendment%20Eugene%20Springfield%20Metro%20Plan.htm From: TOWERY Jeffrey Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 10:24 AM To: MOTT Gregory Subject: FW: Phase 1 proposed amendment Eugene Springfield Metro Plan FYI Jeff From: LEIKEN Sid W [mailto:Sid.LEIKEN@co.lane.or.us] Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 3:52 PM To: LAIRD Matt P; HOWE Kent Cc: TOWERY Jeffrey; GRIMALDI Gino; STEWART Faye H Subject: FW: Phase 1 proposed amendment Eugene Springfield Metro Plan Good evening Gentlemen FYI on this. I look forward to some options here. Sid From: Donna & Tom Robinson [mailto:donrobin4@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 1:29 PM To: LEIKEN Sid W Subject: Re: Phase 1 proposed amendment Eugene Springfield Metro Plan Sid, thanks for your input. I just finished a lengthy phone conversation with Mia from 1000 Friends of Eugene. She has been in contact with Mr. Matthews of Friends of Eugene and appears to be on the band wagon with him. Mia states "we will go to the mat on this". She believes there is some hidden agenda and that this amendment - in its current form - is "toxic". She is preparing materials to rebutt, and says she has been in contact with the planners. I urged her to work within the system from this point forward, and not to ambush the 8/16 committee. She assures me that she simply missed the point of the Phase 1 amendment, and believes there will be strong opposition at the next meeting. Mia stated, however, that she has sympathy for my position. She feels I am the "poster child" for this Phase 1 amendment. Really? I haven't gotten that impression. file:///S|/PC%20-%20Staff%20Reports/2011%20Planni...endment%20Eugene%20Springfield%20Metro%20Plan.htm (1 of 5) [8/10/2011 10:01:47 AM]Attachment 3-9 file:///S|/PC%20-%20Staff%20Reports/2011%20Planning%20Commissio...0proposed%20amendment%20Eugene%20Springfield%20Metro%20Plan.htm If Mia is correct in her belief that major opposition will be mounted against this amendment, however, that is not good news for me. I have waited a year for this amendment. If Friends of Eugene and 1000 Friends of Oregon keep tossing objections into the mix, this amendment could be tied up for a very long time. Mia says she and Mr. Matthews want me to have resolution of my situation. Well, that's a welcome revelation. Mia says all the planners she has spoken to have sympathy for my case as well, and want to get something figured out. OK. I'm for that, too. Here's my question: I have read the Metro Plan forward and backward. There is a variance process under 13.500. I certainly think I qualify under "exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity which result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the property owner, since the enactment of this chapter, has had no control". Part (d) of that same section deals with requesting a minimum variance which would alleviate the difficulty." There are only 4 parcels in the entire Metro Plan that are adversely affected by the RR5 zone. All are within 1 mile of our property. Ours is the largest at 8.7 acres. We simply want to divide the property in half for our sons. Since 1947 when this plot was created, there have been two residences on the property. If we are successful in partitioning the property, there will still only be two total residences on 8.7 acres. We purchased this acreage after being repeatedly assured by Lane County that the property was subject to RR2 zoning. All official documents filed with Lane County indicated the property was zoned RR2. It was only after we purchased the property, cleaned it up, and were 7 months into the partition process that Lane County reversed themselves and advised us we were part of the Metro Plan and, as such, subject to RR5 zoning. Is there any possibility that Lane County, or the respective planners themselves (who are reportedly very sympathetic to our situation) could request a variance to allow me to partition the property as originally planned? If we carried a tag of RR4, it would suffice for our purposes. We could just barely divide into two parcels. That's all we want to do. If this amendment is dogged down with complaints registered by groups such as 1000 Friends of Oregon, and Friends of Eugene, I stand to wait a very long time for any resolution to my situation. It's a situation I didn't create, but I'm left holding the bag. That bag is heavy. And it's just plain wrong. The truth is we probably paid more for the property than necessary, being told it was zoned RR2, not RR5. We paid for clean up. We paid survey costs. And now we are faced with the possibility of trying to hire a land use attorney to try to get permission to divide the property - the very zoning we were repeatedly assured by Lane County we already had prior to purchase. That was over 3 years ago. file:///S|/PC%20-%20Staff%20Reports/2011%20Planni...endment%20Eugene%20Springfield%20Metro%20Plan.htm (2 of 5) [8/10/2011 10:01:47 AM]Attachment 3-10 file:///S|/PC%20-%20Staff%20Reports/2011%20Planning%20Commissio...0proposed%20amendment%20Eugene%20Springfield%20Metro%20Plan.htm I believe my family deserves better treatment. We didn't create this mess, but we're stuck with it. And now it appears we will be sidelined or completely derailed by actions of special interest groups. We need help. Lane County says they want us to succeed. Several planners have told me the same thing, as has City of Springfield. I believe we have support. I welcome your input. On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:01 PM, LEIKEN Sid W <Sid.LEIKEN@co.lane.or.us> wrote: Donna Before you go out and hire an attorney let me check in with a couple of Eugene Planning Commission members and get their thoughts on the influence FOE will have on this process. I personally do not believe they have the information to back them up but I will find out more. Thanks Sid -----Original Message----- From: Donna & Tom Robinson [mailto:donrobin4@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 6:03 PM To: LEIKEN Sid W Subject: Phase 1 proposed amendment Eugene Springfield Metro Plan Commissioner Leiken, As you are probably aware, the 7/19 meeting of the joint planning commissioners of Springfield, Eugene, and Lane County to consider the Phase 1 amendment proposal was thrown into disarray by both the unanswered issues concerning Springfield Utility Board, and the threat by Friends of Eugene to strongly contest the amendment on the basis of Goal 5 issues. In that this amendment would greatly benefit my family, and help to resolve a zoning mess created by Lane County, I am concerned over what effect Friends of Eugene may actually have on Phase 1 negotiations. From what I can glean from researching Friends of Eugene, they seem to focus primarily on Eugene issues. Phase 1 seems to be mainly a housekeeping amendment that really does not affect Eugene. file:///S|/PC%20-%20Staff%20Reports/2011%20Planni...endment%20Eugene%20Springfield%20Metro%20Plan.htm (3 of 5) [8/10/2011 10:01:47 AM]Attachment 3-11 file:///S|/PC%20-%20Staff%20Reports/2011%20Planning%20Commissio...0proposed%20amendment%20Eugene%20Springfield%20Metro%20Plan.htm I was advised today by Mr. Hopkins, Springfield planner, that Springfield Utility Board's concerns appear to have been resolved. So that leaves Friends of Eugene. It has been recommended to me by people close to this subject that it would be prudent for me to hire an attorney to represent my family's concerns and to attempt to nullify Mr. Matthews of Friends of Eugene. Wow. I didn't create this mess, but it sure seems that I have the job of resolving it. And the costs as well. I was jubilant when this amendment was put forth, and certainly thank the Board for advancing this proposal; however, it's pretty crushing to have the Friends of Eugene come in at the last moment and attempt to throw the entire amendment out the door. I don't believe they represent the interests of any affected Springfield property owner. Few of us were present, and those that were are in agreement with the proposal. As of yesterday, Friends of Eugene still had not presented details of their objections. The two week period they had asked for has expired. I expect they may wait until August 16 and deluge the committee with paperwork, again throwing the meeting into disarray while the planning commissioners attempt to digest the materials. A childish tactic, but it appears to be working. My dilemna is: Does it appear Friends of Eugene have substantive complaints regarding Goal 5 or anything else? I don't have unlimited resources that would enable me to hire a land use attorney to argue the county's position. The Friends of Eugene had plenty of time to bring forth their concerns prior to the 7/19 meeting. They did not. They chose, instead, to make an 11th hour appearance and to toss the threat of challenging the amendment and taking it thru the appeal process. Perhaps this is simply a test ground. If they can derail Phase 1, that means Phase 2 - that actually will affect Eugene - may never get to the drawing board. I don't want to give the Friends of Eugene that much power over what happens to Springfield's UGB. That would simply perpetuate the dysfunction that this amendment was targeting in the first place. file:///S|/PC%20-%20Staff%20Reports/2011%20Planni...endment%20Eugene%20Springfield%20Metro%20Plan.htm (4 of 5) [8/10/2011 10:01:47 AM]Attachment 3-12 file:///S|/PC%20-%20Staff%20Reports/2011%20Planning%20Commissio...0proposed%20amendment%20Eugene%20Springfield%20Metro%20Plan.htm Do you have thoughts for me? Donna Robinson file:///S|/PC%20-%20Staff%20Reports/2011%20Planni...endment%20Eugene%20Springfield%20Metro%20Plan.htm (5 of 5) [8/10/2011 10:01:47 AM]Attachment 3-13 file:///S|/PC%20-%20Staff%20Reports/2011%20Planning%20Commiss...%20Linda%20Pauly%20%20Metro%20Plan%20Phase%201%20amendmen.txt From: Donna & Tom Robinson [donrobin4@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 7:33 AM To: HOPKINS Steve Cc: PAULY Linda Subject: Re: Metro Plan Phase 1 amendment Ms. Pauly, as you can see, Steve has alerted me that he will be out of town and not present at the upcoming 8/16 meeting. Mia from 1000 Friends of Oregon has forwarded me a copy of her comments that she has apparently sent to the 3 planning bodies, Springfield among them. I don't have a good idea of how much weight her letter carries, or whether the points she raises have already been addressed. Mia had phoned me a couple of days earlier to alert me that her group has strong feelings about the amendment, and said they have not voiced opposition earlier because she did not understand the points included in the amendment. Guess I've heard these kinds of comments before, tho I fail to understand how this happens so often. But here we are. It's been suggested to me by people close to the subject that I should hire an attorney to oppose 1000 Friends of Eugene. Wow. And Mia of the 1000 Friends has said she sees me as the "poster child" of this amendment. Wow again. I don't want to be anyone's poster child. I don't want to get ground up in the gears of this process. I had prayed that this amendment would help my family get out of the mess Lane County has created for us. Now that seems remote, as objections raised will only further bog down this amendment process. I have sent an e-mail to Sid Leiken, asking the commissioners to consider granting me a variance - perhaps a zoning of RR4 - that would enable me to simply partition the property. Lane County assured me this parcel was zoned RR2 when we purchased it 3 years ago. They corrected themselves when we were 7 months into the partition process. And we've been stuck in the mud since then. We just want to divide the property for our two sons, each newly married this month. A variance of RR4 would just barely accomplish that, but it's adequate. We aren't looking for a subdivision here, just maintaining two residences on 8.7 acres. The same occupancy the property has supported since 1947 when this lot was created. I have taken this Thursday off work for our son's rehearsal dinner. Would you have maybe 20-30 minutes sometime on Thursday to meet with me and give me some sense of how Springfield planners - and maybe the other planning bodies - will react to this letter from 1000 Friends? With the 8/16 meeting so close, I need to know how best to prepare my own comments to the planners. file:///S|/PC%20-%20Staff%20Reports/2011%20Planni...auly%20%20Metro%20Plan%20Phase%201%20amendmen.txt (1 of 6) [8/10/2011 10:02:53 AM]Attachment 3-14 file:///S|/PC%20-%20Staff%20Reports/2011%20Planning%20Commiss...%20Linda%20Pauly%20%20Metro%20Plan%20Phase%201%20amendmen.txt Donna Robinson On 8/8/11, HOPKINS Steve <shopkins@springfield-or.gov> wrote: > Donna, > thanks for the information. I will be out of the office for the next > two weeks, and the person to contact is Linda Pauly. I am not sure if > 1000 friends forwarded the information or not, but Linda will be able > to help you. > > Steve > ________________________________________ > From: Donna & Tom Robinson [donrobin4@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 8:11 AM > To: HOPKINS Steve > Subject: Re: Metro Plan Phase 1 amendment > > Mia of 1000 Friends of Oregon has now forwarded me a copy of > Springfield's section of the Metro Plan border, with a smallish red > circle on the far eastern border of the map, indicating the area that > her group would support removing from the Metro Plan. > > I hope this input has also been forwarded to you folks as well. If > not, I can flip that e-mail attachment to you; however, if this group > and the Friends of Eugene are sincere in their pledge that they are > actively working with the system, they should be putting their > thoughts clearly on the table, and well before the next scheduled 8/16 > meeting. > > I don't really enjoy being the middle man, but I do want to make sure > everyone is talking to each other here. > > Donna Robinson > > On 8/5/11, Donna & Tom Robinson <donrobin4@gmail.com> wrote: >> I'm gratified to hear that you feel comfortable with Goal 5 policies. >> >> I just had a very lengthy call from Mia, 1000 Friends of Oregon. She >> assures me that she, as well as Friends of Eugene, see this Phase 1 >> amendment as "toxic", a precurser to Phase 2, and that they both plan >> on aggressively arguing against the amendment. She seemed to focus >> on the feeling that provisions of this amendment were being "sneaked >> thru" and now that the "real" agenda is becoming more clear, she and file:///S|/PC%20-%20Staff%20Reports/2011%20Planni...auly%20%20Metro%20Plan%20Phase%201%20amendmen.txt (2 of 6) [8/10/2011 10:02:53 AM]Attachment 3-15 file:///S|/PC%20-%20Staff%20Reports/2011%20Planning%20Commiss...%20Linda%20Pauly%20%20Metro%20Plan%20Phase%201%20amendmen.txt >> Friends of Eugene will "go to the mat" to defeat this amendment. >> >> Great. >> >> This Phase 1 amendment would help recify a great wrong done to us at >> the hands of Lane County. I urged Mia to work within the system, to >> confer with affected planners, and not to wait til the last moment to >> spring forward with objections. >> >> Let us hope all parties come to the table and are able to agree on >> this, or an amended version that will still exempt my property from >> the Metro Plan's restrictive RR5 zoning. I know there are bigger >> issues at stake. But rural residential zoning is the critical issue >> for me. We have been left with a zoning mess by the county. >> Everyone seems sympathetic, but no one is offering me a solution, >> other than this possible amendment. If it is derailed, I'm back at >> square one all over again. >> >> Donna Robinson >> >> On 8/5/11, HOPKINS Steve <shopkins@springfield-or.gov> wrote: >>> Ms. Robinson, >>> Based on the evidence in the record, the city is satisfied that the >>> county is adequately addressing Goal 5. This is what the County is >>> proposing to >>> do: >>> 1) adopt the existing Metro Plan Goal 5 policies within the Rural >>> Comprehensive Plan for lands removed from the Metro Plan by Ordinance No. >>> PA >>> 1281, and >>> 2) amend Lane Code 16.253 in order to apply the Metro Plan Safe >>> Harbor standards to riparian corridors removed from the Metro Plan. >>> >>> So far, there is nothing in the record that would change the >>> recommendation for approval. The only issue for Springfield is the >>> drinking water protection. SUB and the City of Springfield have >>> agreed to a concept that uses a temporary Intergovernmental >>> Agreement to allow time for Lane County to adopt a drinking water >>> protection plan. >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> file:///S|/PC%20-%20Staff%20Reports/2011%20Planni...auly%20%20Metro%20Plan%20Phase%201%20amendmen.txt (3 of 6) [8/10/2011 10:02:53 AM]Attachment 3-16 file:///S|/PC%20-%20Staff%20Reports/2011%20Planning%20Commiss...%20Linda%20Pauly%20%20Metro%20Plan%20Phase%201%20amendmen.txt >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Donna & Tom Robinson [mailto:donrobin4@gmail.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 1:00 PM >>> To: HOPKINS Steve >>> Subject: Re: Metro Plan Phase 1 amendment >>> >>> Actually, I do have another question regarding this proposed amendment. >>> >>> I just finished listening to a CD of the minutes of the 7/19 meeting >>> forwarded to me by Deanna Wright, Lane County. I specifically >>> wanted to refresh my memory as to exactly what Mr. Mathews of >>> Friends of Eugene said, and what points of contention his group have >>> with the amendment. >>> >>> It appears he focuses on Goal 5 issues. As of a couple of days ago, >>> Friends of Eugene still had not submitted specifics of their >>> objections. I won't be surprised if that does not occur til the >>> last minute - probably 5 minutes prior to the next meeting on 8/16. >>> Oh well. >>> >>> So...do you feel Goal 5 issues have been adequately addressed in >>> this proposed amendment? It has been suggested to me by those close >>> to the issue that I should consider retaining an attorney to argue >>> against Mr. Mathews and his group. Of course, it is difficult to >>> prepare for specifics when his organization is playing stall >>> tactics. Anyway, that is how it appears to me. I'm new at this >>> game. >>> >>> Do you have any feedback as to the strength/veracity of Friends of >>> Eugene complaints at this stage in the game? Have the planners >>> compiled a sufficient case to fend off Mr. Mathews? >>> >>> If Springfield Utility Board's concerns have been met, I have not >>> heard of any other affected property owner in Springfield who >>> opposes this amendment. >>> My family, of course, will greatly benefit from its passage, as it >>> will help correct a major disservice done to us at the hands of Lane County. >>> We've waited a long time for some justice in >>> our case. I do not want to be derailed by the Friends of Eugene. >>> >>> Their action seems only to reinforce the need for autonomy. file:///S|/PC%20-%20Staff%20Reports/2011%20Planni...auly%20%20Metro%20Plan%20Phase%201%20amendmen.txt (4 of 6) [8/10/2011 10:02:53 AM]Attachment 3-17 file:///S|/PC%20-%20Staff%20Reports/2011%20Planning%20Commiss...%20Linda%20Pauly%20%20Metro%20Plan%20Phase%201%20amendmen.txt >>> >>> Your thoughts will be appreciated. >>> >>> Donna Robinson >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8/4/11, HOPKINS Steve <shopkins@springfield-or.gov> wrote: >>>> Ms. Robinson, >>>> Linda asked me to answer your questions since I am the Planner >>>> assigned to this project. I am talking with SUB and Lane County to >>>> resolve the drinking water issue. >>>> >>>> SUB has proposed two options to resolve the drinking water issue: >>>> 1) retain the Metro Plan Boundary around the drinking water source >>>> areas; or 2) have the city and the county enter into an >>>> Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for joint administration of land >>>> use activities in the drinking water source areas. After some >>>> discussion, we have also identified a third option, that uses a >>>> temporary IGA that would expire once the county adopts its own drinking water protection plan. >>>> >>>> We are moving a positive direction and I fully expect this issue >>>> will be resolved. >>>> >>>> Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. >>>> >>>> >>>> Steve Hopkins, AICP >>>> Senior Land Use Planner >>>> Urban Planning Division, >>>> Development Services Dept. >>>> City of Springfield >>>> 541-726-3649 >>>> >>>> Please note my new email address effective immediately: >>>> shopkins@springfield-or.gov<lpauly@springfield-or.gov> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Donna & Tom Robinson [mailto:donrobin4@gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 1:58 PM >>>> To: PAULY Linda file:///S|/PC%20-%20Staff%20Reports/2011%20Planni...auly%20%20Metro%20Plan%20Phase%201%20amendmen.txt (5 of 6) [8/10/2011 10:02:53 AM]Attachment 3-18 file:///S|/PC%20-%20Staff%20Reports/2011%20Planning%20Commiss...%20Linda%20Pauly%20%20Metro%20Plan%20Phase%201%20amendmen.txt >>>> Subject: Metro Plan Phase 1 amendment >>>> >>>> Ms. Pauly, I attended the recent 7/19 joint planning meeting where >>>> the phase >>>> 1 amendment was introduced. As you are aware, there were stated >>>> issues involving Springfield Utility Board, as well as undefined >>>> complaints from Friends of Eugene. >>>> >>>> I am attempting to secure what details Lane County has in regard to >>>> Friends of Eugene, specifics on their complaints. >>>> >>>> As to SUB, can you tell me where those discussions are now? Have >>>> you made progress in finding common ground that will remove them >>>> from "dissenters"? >>>> >>>> My property zoning hangs in the balance. >>>> >>>> Thank you for your thoughts. >>>> >>>> Donna Robinson >>>> >>> >> > file:///S|/PC%20-%20Staff%20Reports/2011%20Planni...auly%20%20Metro%20Plan%20Phase%201%20amendmen.txt (6 of 6) [8/10/2011 10:02:53 AM]Attachment 3-19 file:///S|/PC%20-%20Staff%20Reports/2011%20Planning%20Commissi...teve%20Hopkins%20FW%20Metro%20Plan%20Phase%201%20amendment.txt From: HOPKINS Steve Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 2:34 PM To: MOTT Gregory Cc: PAULY Linda Subject: FW: Metro Plan Phase 1 amendment FYI -----Original Message----- From: Donna & Tom Robinson [mailto:donrobin4@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 2:31 PM To: HOPKINS Steve Subject: Re: Metro Plan Phase 1 amendment I'm gratified to hear that you feel comfortable with Goal 5 policies. I just had a very lengthy call from Mia, 1000 Friends of Oregon. She assures me that she, as well as Friends of Eugene, see this Phase 1 amendment as "toxic", a precurser to Phase 2, and that they both plan on aggressively arguing against the amendment. She seemed to focus on the feeling that provisions of this amendment were being "sneaked thru" and now that the "real" agenda is becoming more clear, she and Friends of Eugene will "go to the mat" to defeat this amendment. Great. This Phase 1 amendment would help recify a great wrong done to us at the hands of Lane County. I urged Mia to work within the system, to confer with affected planners, and not to wait til the last moment to spring forward with objections. Let us hope all parties come to the table and are able to agree on this, or an amended version that will still exempt my property from the Metro Plan's restrictive RR5 zoning. I know there are bigger issues at stake. But rural residential zoning is the critical issue for me. We have been left with a zoning mess by the county. Everyone seems sympathetic, but no one is offering me a solution, other than this possible amendment. If it is derailed, I'm back at square one all over again. Donna Robinson On 8/5/11, HOPKINS Steve <shopkins@springfield-or.gov> wrote: > Ms. Robinson, > Based on the evidence in the record, the city is satisfied that the > county is adequately addressing Goal 5. This is what the County is proposing to do: file:///S|/PC%20-%20Staff%20Reports/2011%20Plann...%20FW%20Metro%20Plan%20Phase%201%20amendment.txt (1 of 4) [8/10/2011 10:04:14 AM]Attachment 3-20 file:///S|/PC%20-%20Staff%20Reports/2011%20Planning%20Commissi...teve%20Hopkins%20FW%20Metro%20Plan%20Phase%201%20amendment.txt > 1) adopt the existing Metro Plan Goal 5 policies within the Rural > Comprehensive Plan for lands removed from the Metro Plan by Ordinance > No. PA 1281, and > 2) amend Lane Code 16.253 in order to apply the Metro Plan Safe Harbor > standards to riparian corridors removed from the Metro Plan. > > So far, there is nothing in the record that would change the > recommendation for approval. The only issue for Springfield is the > drinking water protection. SUB and the City of Springfield have > agreed to a concept that uses a temporary Intergovernmental Agreement > to allow time for Lane County to adopt a drinking water protection plan. > > Steve > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Donna & Tom Robinson [mailto:donrobin4@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 1:00 PM > To: HOPKINS Steve > Subject: Re: Metro Plan Phase 1 amendment > > Actually, I do have another question regarding this proposed amendment. > > I just finished listening to a CD of the minutes of the 7/19 meeting > forwarded to me by Deanna Wright, Lane County. I specifically wanted > to refresh my memory as to exactly what Mr. Mathews of Friends of > Eugene said, and what points of contention his group have with the amendment. > > It appears he focuses on Goal 5 issues. As of a couple of days ago, > Friends of Eugene still had not submitted specifics of their > objections. I won't be surprised if that does not occur til the last > minute - probably 5 minutes prior to the next meeting on 8/16. Oh well. > > So...do you feel Goal 5 issues have been adequately addressed in this > proposed amendment? It has been suggested to me by those close to the > issue that I should consider retaining an attorney to argue against > Mr. Mathews and his group. Of course, it is difficult to prepare for > specifics when his organization is playing stall tactics. Anyway, > that is how it appears to me. I'm new at this game. > > Do you have any feedback as to the strength/veracity of Friends of file:///S|/PC%20-%20Staff%20Reports/2011%20Plann...%20FW%20Metro%20Plan%20Phase%201%20amendment.txt (2 of 4) [8/10/2011 10:04:14 AM]Attachment 3-21 file:///S|/PC%20-%20Staff%20Reports/2011%20Planning%20Commissi...teve%20Hopkins%20FW%20Metro%20Plan%20Phase%201%20amendment.txt > Eugene complaints at this stage in the game? Have the planners > compiled a sufficient case to fend off Mr. Mathews? > > If Springfield Utility Board's concerns have been met, I have not > heard of any other affected property owner in Springfield who opposes this amendment. > My family, of course, will greatly benefit from its passage, as it > will help correct a major disservice done to us at the hands of Lane County. > We've waited a long time for some justice in > our case. I do not want to be derailed by the Friends of Eugene. > > Their action seems only to reinforce the need for autonomy. > > Your thoughts will be appreciated. > > Donna Robinson > > > > On 8/4/11, HOPKINS Steve <shopkins@springfield-or.gov> wrote: >> Ms. Robinson, >> Linda asked me to answer your questions since I am the Planner >> assigned to this project. I am talking with SUB and Lane County to >> resolve the drinking water issue. >> >> SUB has proposed two options to resolve the drinking water issue: 1) >> retain the Metro Plan Boundary around the drinking water source >> areas; or 2) have the city and the county enter into an >> Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for joint administration of land >> use activities in the drinking water source areas. After some >> discussion, we have also identified a third option, that uses a >> temporary IGA that would expire once the county adopts its own drinking water protection plan. >> >> We are moving a positive direction and I fully expect this issue will >> be resolved. >> >> Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. >> >> >> Steve Hopkins, AICP >> Senior Land Use Planner >> Urban Planning Division, >> Development Services Dept. >> City of Springfield file:///S|/PC%20-%20Staff%20Reports/2011%20Plann...%20FW%20Metro%20Plan%20Phase%201%20amendment.txt (3 of 4) [8/10/2011 10:04:14 AM]Attachment 3-22 file:///S|/PC%20-%20Staff%20Reports/2011%20Planning%20Commissi...teve%20Hopkins%20FW%20Metro%20Plan%20Phase%201%20amendment.txt >> 541-726-3649 >> >> Please note my new email address effective immediately: >> shopkins@springfield-or.gov<lpauly@springfield-or.gov> >> >> >> >> >> From: Donna & Tom Robinson [mailto:donrobin4@gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 1:58 PM >> To: PAULY Linda >> Subject: Metro Plan Phase 1 amendment >> >> Ms. Pauly, I attended the recent 7/19 joint planning meeting where >> the phase >> 1 amendment was introduced. As you are aware, there were stated >> issues involving Springfield Utility Board, as well as undefined >> complaints from Friends of Eugene. >> >> I am attempting to secure what details Lane County has in regard to >> Friends of Eugene, specifics on their complaints. >> >> As to SUB, can you tell me where those discussions are now? Have you >> made progress in finding common ground that will remove them from >> "dissenters"? >> >> My property zoning hangs in the balance. >> >> Thank you for your thoughts. >> >> Donna Robinson >> > file:///S|/PC%20-%20Staff%20Reports/2011%20Plann...%20FW%20Metro%20Plan%20Phase%201%20amendment.txt (4 of 4) [8/10/2011 10:04:14 AM]Attachment 3-23