HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 10 25 Metro Plan Amendment JointSupplemental Memorandum #3
Memo Date: October 12, 2011
Deliberation Date: October 25, 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: Staff responses to public testimony and Commissioner’s questions
regarding proposed Metro Plan boundary amendments
1. BACKGROUND / ISSUE
Lane County has initiated an amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
General Plan (the Metro Plan) and has also initiated associated amendments to the Lane
County Rural Comprehensive Plan (RCP). The proposed Metro Plan amendment would
modify the plan’s boundary east of Interstate 5, resulting in a boundary that is coterminous
with the City of Springfield’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
The proposed boundary amendment requires a joint hearing before the Planning
Commissions of the Metro Plan partners and on July 19, 2011, the Eugene, Springfield and
Lane County Planning Commissions opened a public hearing on the matter. The hearing
was continued to, and then closed on, August 16, 2011, but the record remained open until
September 13th. This memorandum summarizes and responds to comments entered into
the record between August 16 and September 13. For a complete description of this
proposal please refer to the original staff memo dated July 15, 2011, and to Supplemental
Memos #1 and #2, dated July 18 and August 16, respectively.
2. DISCUSSION
2.1 Public Comments submitted into the record from 8/16/2011 – 9/13/2011
A complete record of written comments received between August 16 and Sept 13 are
included as Attachments 1-12 to this memo. Comments, organized by author, are
summarized below. Where appropriate, staff’s responses to the comments follow.
Donna Robinson - Attachments 1, 4, 5, and 6:
Ms. Robinson’s numerous entries into the record reflect her ongoing position that the Metro
Plan Boundary should be amended and her property should be removed from the plan and
placed under the regulatory authority of the RCP. Ms Robinson has stated that her interest
in seeing the Metro Plan boundary amended is driven by her goal of dividing her 8.7 acre
parcel of rural residentially zoned land into two smaller parcels.
Staff Response: Under Lane Code, the minimum lot size for division of Ms Robinson’s
parcel is 2 acres. However, pursuant to Chapter II, Section G of the Metro Plan (page II-G-
10) the minimum lot size for a residential lot is 5 acres. This policy prevents a division of
the Robinson property. During the course of the public hearing three possible options for
addressing Ms Robinson’s issue have emerged. They are:
Page 1 of 15
Option 1: The PCs may recommend that the Metro Plan boundary be amended as
proposed by the County. This would remove the Robinson’s property from the
Metro Plan Phase 1 Boundary Amendment Supplemental Memo #3
Metro Plan and enable Ms. Robinson to pursue her land division unencumbered
from the minimum lot size requirements of the Metro Plan.
Option 2: The PCs may recommend that the Plan Boundary be amended only within the
vicinity of the Robison property. This “surgical boundary amendment” would
achieve the same result as Option 1 but would simply remove the Robinson
property from the Metro Plan and leave the remainder of the plan boundary in
place.
Option 3: The PCs may recommend that the above referenced minimum lot size policy
language be removed from the Metro Plan or amended to a enable a minimum
lot size of 4 acres or less instead of 5 acres. This “surgical policy amendment”
would keep the Robinson property within the Metro Plan but would address the 5
acre minimum lot size requirement hampering division of the land. In an email to
the PCs (Attachment 4) Ms. Robinson appears to indicate that she would be
supportive of this option in lieu of a boundary change.
Lauri Segel-Vaccher - Attachments 2 and 10:
In Attachment 2, Ms. Segel-Vaccher identifies three broad areas of concern with the Metro
Plan boundary proposal.
First, she states that the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has
not yet reviewed and commented on the proposal. She writes that: “it appears they [DLCD]
have misplaced or misfiled these proposals... “ and that “While there is still time for DLCD to
review the proposal before it is considered by the elected officials, you [the Planning
Commissions] do yourselves and the public a disservice if you make a recommendation
without the opportunity to review all relevant information.”
Staff Response: Pursuant to ORS 197.610 and OAR 660 – Division 18, a complete copy of
the proposal (in electronic and hardcopy formats) was sent to Ed Moore, DLCD Southern
Willamette Valley Representative and also to Larry French, DLCD Plan Amendment
Specialist, 45 days prior to the July 19 first evidentiary hearing. Further, on August 11 staff
discussed the project in a phone conversation with Darren Nichols, DLCD Community
Services Manager. According to Mr. Nichols, DLCD staff was in possession of the proposal.
Mr. Nichols further informed staff that he felt it was unlikely his Department would provide
formal comments on the proposal - and in fact, no comments were submitted. DLCD’s
decision to not provide comments for the record is not unusual. DLCD often chooses not to
weigh in on local or even regional land use matters. When DLCD does provide comment on
a proposed plan amendment, those comments are generally directed at how the proposal
complies with state statutes, administrative rules or statewide planning goals. As described
by staff during the public hearing, there is nothing codified in statute or administrative rule
that compelled Eugene, Springfield and Lane County to adopt a regional plan. Nor is there
any specific framework in state law regarding the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan. As
described in staff’s findings, the requirements and procedures for addressing statewide
planning goals have and continue to be met during this plan amendment process. Staff
believes it is for this reason that DLCD has likely chosen not to comment at this time.
Second, Ms. Segel-Vaccher opines that adjusting the plan boundary will be detrimental to
coordinated planning efforts. She writes: “By removing approximately 8,200 acres of rural
residential, forested, agricultural, and sensitive riparian areas from the metro plan are east
of I-5, there will no longer be any basis [for?] coordinated planning between LC and the City
of Springfield. Coordination will be replaced with autonomy according to the staff report.”
Metro Plan Phase 1 Boundary Amendment Supplemental Memo #3
Page 2 of 15
Staff Response: No documents generated by the County state that “coordination will be
replaced with autonomy”. As staff discussed during the public hearing, coordination
between the county and the cities can and will continue to occur if the proposed boundary
adjustment is adopted. There are several specific points to be made regarding this issue:
Coordinated planning between counties and cities is already required by state law.
There are several instances where counties and cities are compelled to coordinate on
essential land use matters, i.e.; UGB expansions, development of coordinated
population projections, transportation planning, etc. Oregon’s statewide planning system
already provides a framework for coordination and this coordination will go on
independent of how the boundaries of the Metro Plan may be adjusted. Of course,
additional coordination is logical and this proposal will not preclude additional efforts and
opportunities for coordination among the Metro Plan Partners.
The proposed boundary adjustment would provide the county decision autonomy
regarding proposed plan amendments on rural lands outside of Springfield’s UGB. This
is the same autonomy the cities currently enjoy within their incorporated city limits. In
other words, The County is not a decision maker in plan amendments that occur within
city limits, yet coordination between the County and the Cities still occurs.
Coordination between counties and cities takes place across Oregon in areas where
there is no equivalent to the Metro Plan.
This proposal would not abolish the Metro Plan and Lane County will continue to be a
participating Metro Plan partner.
Finally, Adoption of this proposal will address county concerns regarding equity and it is
foreseeable that coordination (or at the very least, relations) among the Metro Plan
partners will improve if the proposed Metro Plan boundary adjustment is adopted.
In the third point of Attachment 2, Ms. Segel-Vaccher opines that the materials in the record
do not clearly show what zoning and plan designations changes are being proposed and
that this information should be more “transparent”. One specific statement she makes
along these lines is in reference to supposed changes to forest zoning. She writes: “it is also
unclear if, or why, F2 rather that F1 zoning will be applied on some areas designated as
forestland.”
Staff Response: Detailed before and after maps of the proposed plan designation and
zoning changes were provided as attachments to the original staff memo. These maps were
accompanied by text and table descriptions of the proposals within the staff memo and
displayed during the project open house. In addition, staff provided a presentation of the
proposed changes (aided by PowerPoint visuals). This method of illustrating and describing
proposed zone and plan designation changes exceeds LMD’s standard process for
presenting such material. Admittedly, the proposed amendments may appear somewhat
complex but staff has made concerted efforts to present the information in a clear and
straightforward manner.
Regarding Ms. Segel-Vaccher comment on changes to forest zoning – no such zone
changes are included in this proposal and it is unknown how such an inference could
reasonably be made from a careful review of the materials in the record.
In Attachment 10, Ms. Segel-Vaccher further expands on her concerns with the proposed
boundary amendment. She asserts that, as presented, the county’s proposal would result
Metro Plan Phase 1 Boundary Amendment Supplemental Memo #3
Page 3 of 15
in a Metro Plan that is internally inconsistent1. Ten specific points are provided to support /
illustrate this position. These points are provided verbatim and shown in bold, below. Staff’s
response to each point follows.
1) Text amendments are needed throughout the Plan to reflect the changes of the
eliminated Metro Plan Boundary east of I-5. There are references throughout the
Plan that will be moot with the proposed change. Examples include: “the
Metropolitan area”, “area between the Plan boundary and the UGB”, “areas outside
the UGB and inside the Plan Boundary” and many others, which are staff’s
responsibility to catalog and review.
Staff Response: As described on page 4 of the original staff memorandum, comprehensive
policy amendments are not a component of the Phase 1 process and this amendment is
limited to diagram and boundary map changes only. This is because lands outside of
Eugene’s UGB (west of interstate 5) will remain within the Metro Plan boundary and policies
applicable to those areas must be maintained for the time being within the Metro Plan. The
policies Ms. Segel-Vaccher describes above were cataloged and reviewed by staff in March
of 2011 and circulated to the Eugene and Springfield staff for their review. It was
determined that removing these policies while lands outside of the UGB remained within the
purview of the Metro plan would, in fact, make the plan internally inconsistent and not the
other way around as Ms. Segel-Vaccher contends. Additionally, staff conducted a careful
review of the Plan to determine if there were any specific goals or policies that applied
outside of the UGB east of Interstate-5 that would need to be addressed as part of this
amendment. There were none.
2) Removing one half of the Plan Boundary (east of I-5) and retaining one half (west
of I-5) is a flawed concept. There is decision making authority inherent in the
existence of the Metro Plan Boundary that will potentially be exposed to
inbalance of authority should this half-boundary proposal go forward.
Staff Response: Land use plans are commonly updated or refined in a phased or tiered
approach that is based on logical political or geographic boundaries – i.e; subarea plans,
neighborhood refinement plans, etc. Amendments of this nature allow issues, which may be
specific to one area, to be raised and carefully reviewed without getting lost in the mix of a
larger amendment (consider the time the PCs were able to dedicate to the Springfield Utility
Board’s concerns). This is the type of careful and more precise review that Ms Segel-
Vaccher generally advocates for, so it is curious that she opposes it in this instance.
Regarding the contention that the phased approach will potentially imbalance the decision
making authority in the Metro plan - an inequity in decision making authority already exists
and it favors the cities. This amendment would help mitigate this existing imbalance.
3) With the proposed Boundary amendment, more than half of the Plan’s 8
“General Assumptions” need to be revised. These include a variety of
population related trends.
Staff Response: It is unclear from this statement how any of the Metro Plan’s General
assumptions would need to be revised at this time. Population numbers listed within the
General Assumptions pertain to the Metro Area UGB. No correlation between a change in
Page 4 of 15
1 While not actually a criterion listed within the Metro Plan, Lane Code Chapter 12.225(2)(b) (Criteria for a
approval of a Metro Plan amendment) requires that: Adoption of [an] amendment must not make the Metro Plan
internally inconsistent.
Metro Plan Phase 1 Boundary Amendment Supplemental Memo #3
population trends inside the UGB and an amendment to the Metro Plan boundary outside of
the UGB can reasonably be inferred and no change in the numbers reflected in the General
Assumptions require adjustment.
4) Chapter II, Section C Policies referencing the Plan Boundary area will need
updating.
Staff Response: It is unclear from this statement which specific policies would need
updating or why. Also, considering staff’s response under point 1, above, amending
references to the Plan Boundary is not advisable during this phase.
5) Chapter II, Section E, Urban and Urbanizable Land directs the 3 jurisdictions to
cooperatively monitor and report on certain trends and related land supplies.
Lane County’s role in the issue of urbanization is forever changed should this
proposal go forward, although there has been little relevant discussion of this
thus far.
Staff Response: Again, this proposal will provide Lane County decision making autonomy
on proposed plan amendments on rural lands outside of Springfield’s UGB. This proposal
would have no foreseeable impact on Lane County’s role regarding urban and urbanizable
land as described within the Metro Plan.
6) Chapter II, Section G, Metro Plan Boundary notes that the Metro Plan Diagram
reflects the influence of many sources. Findings and conclusions from these
multiple studies and reports were relied on for Plan goals, objectives, and
policies. The proposed Boundary amendment cannot be without implications
and impacts that should establish new findings and inform new
goals/objectives/policies.
Staff Response: Chapter II, Section G, and Chapter IV specifically provide for amendments
to the Metro Plan Boundary. These sections do not contain any criteria requiring an analysis
of “implications and impacts” or the drafting of findings to inform new
“goals/objectives/polices” when an amendment to the plan’s boundary is contemplated.
7) References to Lane Code (LC) Chapter 16 provisions applying inside the UGB
will no longer apply if this proposal is approved. Lane County has not
addressed this detail.
Staff Response: The proposed amendment will have no impact on where Lane Code
Chapter 16 is applicable, so it is unclear how this statement has any bearing.
8) References to Goals 3 and 4 east of I-5 become irrelevant if the Plan Boundary is
removed
Staff Response: It is unclear, which specific references to Goals 3 and 4 Ms. Segel-Vaccher
may be referring to. Further it is unclear from this statement how such references might
render the plan internally inconsistent.
9) GOAL 5: The county’s proposal suggests it will accommodate the need for a
Goal 5 inventory for the area East of I-5 being removed from the Metro Plan by
relying on existing Metro Plan policies. However, the Plan does not allow
implementation of its’ policies outside the area of the Plan. The County will need
to inventory and analyze the Goal 5 resources in the area being removed from
Metro Plan Phase 1 Boundary Amendment Supplemental Memo #3
Page 5 of 15
Staff Response: OAR 660-23-000 outlines the procedures and requirements for complying
with Statewide Planning Goal 5. Under the rule cities and counties throughout Oregon are
obligated to compile inventories of “significant” Goal 5 resources. As a second step, cities
and counties are required to examine existing local ordinances and adopt or update their
regulatory programs to address protection of inventoried significant resources. Cities and
counties are required to address the Goal 5 rules when conducting periodic review and
when amending comprehensive plans and related Goal 5 land use regulations.
However, pursuant to OAR 660-23-0250 (3):
Local governments are not required to apply Goal 5 in consideration of a PAPA unless the PAPA
affects a Goal 5 resource. For purposes of this section, a PAPA would affect a Goal 5 resource only
if:
(a) The PAPA creates or amends a resource list or a portion of an acknowledged plan or land use
regulation adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific
requirements of Goal 5;
(b) The PAPA allows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular significant Goal 5
resource site on an acknowledged resource list; or
(c) The PAPA amends an acknowledged UGB and factual information is submitted demonstrating
that a resource site, or the impact areas of such a site, is included in the amended UGB area.
The current proposal would adopt existing Metro Plan policies and inventories pertaining to
Goal resources by reference into the Rural Comprehensive Plan. These existing policies
and inventories would simply be incorporated into the RCP and would remain unchanged.
Implementation of the policies and the regulatory programs to protect significant resources,
which are already in place and are not changing, would be seamless. Therefore, this
proposal would not affect a Goal 5 resource as described by OAR 660-23-0250(3)(a)-(c)
and no updated inventory or associated ESEE analysis is required.
10) If there are any transportation plans/projects outside the Springfield UGB but
inside the current Plan Boundary, they would need to be made part of the RCP.
Staff Response: This statement, regardless of its accuracy, would have no bearing on the
internal consistency of the Metro plan. It should also be noted that the proposed boundary
amendment has been reviewed by the Lane County transportation planning staff. No
issues or conflicts with current transportation planning efforts were identified.
Nena Lovinger (Attachment 3):
Metro Plan Phase 1 Boundary Amendment Supplemental Memo #3
Page 6 of 15
Nena Lovinger, Lane County resident, submitted testimony related to the residential zoning
update element of the County’s proposal (Ordinance No. PA 1284). Ms. Lovinger’s
concerns and questions can be summarized into the five categories, which are shown in
bold, below and followed by staff’s responses.
1) Most Hearing’s Officials decision will become Planning Director decisions.
Staff Response: This is an accurate statement, however, it does not mean that the land use
review and decision making process would become any less stringent if changed from an
Hearings Official to a Planning Director’s decision. Nor, is it is clearly articulated in Ms.
Lovinger’s remarks how this would be the case. In fact, as compared in Table 1.1 below, the
approval criteria from a Hearing’s Official review to Planning Director review would become
less vague and therefore, easier to regulate regardless of which review procedure may be
used.
Table 1.1 - Comparison of Rural Residential Review Procedures
LC 16.231 ( Hearings Official) LC 16.290 (Planning Director)
(a) Will not significantly impact existing uses on
adjacent and nearby lands and other uses
permitted in the zone in which the subject property
is located.
(b) Where necessary, measures are taken to
minimize potential negative impacts on adjacent
and nearby lands.
(c) The proposed use is consistent with the policies
contained in the Rural Comprehensive Plan.
(a) Shall not create significant adverse impacts on
existing uses on adjacent and nearby lands or on
uses permitted by the zoning of adjacent or nearby
undeveloped lands;
(b) Where necessary, measures are taken to
minimize potential negative impacts on adjacent
and nearby lands;
(c) The proposed use and development shall not
exceed the carrying capacity of the soil or of the
existing water supply resources and sewer service.
To address this requirement, factual information
shall be provided about any existing or proposed
sewer or water systems for the site and the site's
ability to provide on-site sewage disposal and water
supply if a community water or sewer system is not
available; and
(d) The proposed use and development shall not
result in public health hazards or adverse
environmental impacts that violate state or federal
water quality regulations.
2) What provisions will protect existing mobile home parks?
Staff Response: Lane Code Ch. 16.290 allows current lawful Mobile Home Parks to
continue, but it is silent on new mobile home parks. Under LC 16.290, Mobile Homes in
lawful Mobile Home parks can be replaced as a permitted use pursuant to code provision in
LC 16.290(2)(o) which states: “Maintenance, repair, or replacement of lawfully existing uses
and development not authorized elsewhere by LC 16.290”.
3) Home Occupations change from a required Special Use Permit to an outright
permitted use.
Staff Response: This is incorrect. There are two levels of Home Occupations in the updated
LC 16.290 Rural Residential zone. One is a home occupation as a permitted use (LC
Metro Plan Phase 1 Boundary Amendment Supplemental Memo #3
Page 7 of 15
16.290(2)(h)(i)-(x)), and the other is termed a Rural Home Business processed as a
Planning Director application (LC 16.290(3)). The permitted use home occupation is limited
in nature and does not allow customers to the site, limits the amount of business related
deliveries to two per day, and limits the size of the home occupation. While the Rural Home
Business allows more intensive home occupations in the residential zone. Both options
require compatibility with the nearby area.
4) Additional area allowances are listed but not described.
Staff Response: Additional area allowances exist in LC 16.209(6)(c). This is commonly
termed a pre-existing dwelling division in planning. Which means, if two (or more) lawful
dwellings exist on the subject property and the property is less than the minimum parcel
size needed to divide it, then it could be divided as long as it meets all the provisions in LC
16.290(6)(c).
5) Property development standards are said to be nearly identical when comparing
LC 16.231 to LC 16.290.
Staff Response: This is correct. A review of Attachments 11 and 12 from the Lane County
staff report dated July 15, 2011, will reveal that the property development standards in LC
16.231(7) are nearly identical to the property development standards in LC 16.290(7). To
clarify, this zone change does not apply to any properties within the UGB.
Finally, these changes are being made in response to 1994 Goal 14 Rule, (OAR 660-022).
As a component of Lane County’s last Periodic Review cycle, properties zoned residential
within the RCP (LC 16.231) were updated with new zoning regulations contained in Lane
Code 16.291. These changes were promulgated by the 1994 Community Rule. At that time
the regulation updates required by the Rule were not applied to lands within the Metro Plan
boundary because Lane County’s Periodic Review work program only applied to the RCP.
Therefore, the county is now proposing to update the zoning for residential properties
leaving the Metro Plan and coming under the authority of the RCP.
Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienicki (Attachment 7):
In a September 11 email to the LCPC, former Planning Commissioner Siekiel-Zdzienicki
expressed his thoughts regarding the proposed amendment. Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki took
part in the public hearings on July 19 and August 16 but due to term expiration he will not
be participating in deliberations. In his email, the former commissioner reflected on the
contentious Delta Sand and Gravel application and opined that “interfaces between both
sides of the UGB are the most contentious issues brought forth to the Commission. For a
fair and just evaluation of this boundary area, all jurisdictions must be involved to represent
all of the public’s concerns.”
Staff Response: N/A
Friends of Buford Park and Mt. Pisgah (Attachment 8):
In Attachment 8, Friends of Buford Park and Mt. Pisgah Board President, Brian Millington,
encourages the Planning Commissions of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County to support
retention of the Metro Plan boundary in its current location. The reasoning provided for this
position is a potential loss of coordination amongst Metro Plan partners. Specifically, Mr.
Millington contends that the proposed amendment “will reduce inter-governmental
collaboration in key areas to balance conservation of ‘green infrastructure’ and future urban
development.”
Metro Plan Phase 1 Boundary Amendment Supplemental Memo #3
Page 8 of 15
Staff Response: The issue of coordination is addressed in detail in response to comments
provided by Ms Segel-Vaccher. Please refer to pages 2 and 3 of this memo (staff response
to attachment 2, item 2) for a discussion of how the proposed amendment will not impede
coordination among the Metro Plan partners.
1000 Friends of Oregon (Attachment 9):
Mia Nelson, Willamette Valley Advocate for 1000 Friends of Oregon, articulates five
recommendations for consideration regarding the proposed boundary amendment. These
recommendations are listed in bold, below and followed by staff’s responses.
1) Do not pursue a phased adoption process; do it all at once or not at all.
Staff Response: Lane County’s reasoning and justification for a phased adoption process is
provided in response to comments from Ms. Segel-Vaccher, above.
2) Defer further action until completion of Eugene and Springfield's UGB evaluation
processes.
Staff Response: Requiring the Metro Plan Boundary amendment to wait until future UGB
expansions are completed would delay action on this item considerably – perhaps by
several years and would likely not provide any added benefit to the cities. The reasoning for
deferring action on this proposal until UGB expansions are completed assumes that: 1) A
PAPA / zone change application will be requested in an area the cities may be interested in
expanding into, 2) The PAPA zone change is approved by Lane County, 3) The PAPA /
zone change would lead to a use that is somehow incompatible with a UGB expansion, and
4) an alternate UGB expansion area is impracticable, and 5) Lane County’s decision is not
overturned on an appeal. Given the rarity of Metro PAPAs outside of the UGBs, it highly
unlikely that this sequence of events would ever play out.
3) Re-evaluate the idea of plan boundary changes in light of the newly revised
UGBs.
Staff Response: It’s unclear how this delay would be constructive.
4) Solve the concerns of Springfield Utility Board prior to amending the boundary.
Staff Response: Resolution of SUB’s concerns may or may not be a priority for the BCC.
Regardless, the PCs can make recommendations to address SUB’s concerns and still
achieve Lane County’s objective of modifying the Metro Plan Boundary.
5) Include revisions to Metro Plan text to make it consistent with any boundary
change.
Staff Response: No such revisions are needed at this time and in fact, such attempted
revisions would themselves likely result in a Metro Plan that is internally inconsistent. See
staff’s response to Ms. Segel-Vaccher’s questions regarding consistency, above.
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) (Attachment 11):
After requesting that the record remain open to allow the additional time for review, The
Nature Conservancy chose not to comment on the proposal.
Staff Response: N/A
Metro Plan Phase 1 Boundary Amendment Supplemental Memo #3
Page 9 of 15
LandWatch Lane County (Attachment 12):
Staff discerned three points from the somewhat hyperbolic testimony provided by
LandWatch Lane County. These points are shown in bold and followed by staff’s responses:
1) A balance of powers in decision making is best at the federal and local level.
Staff Response: Arguments could be made both ways as to whether or not multi-
jurisdictional decision making in local land use matters is good or bad. Regardless, multi-
jurisdictional land use decision making is certainly not the norm in Oregon, or elsewhere.
Moreover, the current decision making framework within the Metro Plan is not equally
balanced in its present form.
2) Regional planning is an appropriate and responsible mechanism to address
issues such as air, water soil and noise pollution, traffic congestion, etc.
Staff Response: This is a valid point. However, as addressed earlier in this memo, adoption
of Lane County’s proposal would not denote an end to regional planning. It will simply
provide the County the same level of autonomy in certain land use decisions that the Cities
currently enjoy.
3) The Board of Commissioners is pursuing this action to enable the Lane County
Planning Director to “make decisions of regional importance and impact without
official oversight and free from troublesome public scrutiny”.
Staff Response: This is inaccurate. If the proposed boundary adjustment is adopted and
Lane County is the sole decision maker on RCP plan amendments affecting lands formerly
within the Metro Plan, those decisions will still go through the public review process before
the Lane County Planning Commission and the Lane County Board of Commissioners. The
BCC will be the decision maker, not the Lane County Planning Director. Those decisions
will still be reviewed by the Department of Land Conservation and Development and will still
be appealable to the Land Use Board of Appeals and beyond.
2.2 Specific questions from Planning Commissioners:
In an effort to promote more informed deliberations, staff from Eugene, Springfield and
Lane County circulated the twelve attachments discussed in Section 2.1, above, to their
respective Planning Commissions. Staff asked the PCs to provide specific question they
may have had about the testimony in advance of deliberations. Two commissioners
responded with questions:
Questions from John Sullivan (Lane County PC):
Ms. Segel’s letter:
o She claims DLCD is not in agreement to MP changes. She also raises
numerous issues. Response from staff?
o Has DLCD reviewed and commented?
o What will insure coordinated planning between LC and Spfg? In what
regard specifically?
Staff Response: These questions have been addressed in section 2.1, above.
Metro Plan Phase 1 Boundary Amendment Supplemental Memo #3
Page 10 of 15
Ms. Lovinger Aug 16 letter:
o Multiple issues regarding zoning. Assurance from staff they have been
addressed.
Staff Response: These questions have been addressed in section 2.1, above.
Friends of Buford Sept 13 letter:
o Address their concern about lack of collaborative decision-making.
Staff Response: Again, the issue of collaboration is discussed in detail under section 2.1, in
response to comments from Ms. Segel-Vacher
1000 Friends Sept 13 letter:
o Issues of an evolving UGB. If changed near term what is effect on MP?
Staff Response: If either the Eugene or Springfield UGB is changed at anytime then, yes,
the Metro Plan will also need to be amended to reflect those changes. However, requiring
that the Metro Plan Boundary amendment wait until to future UGB expansions is completed
would unnecessarily delay action on this item for the foreseeable future and it is likely that
this delay would be unacceptable to the Lane County Board of Commissioners.
o Could LC create problems for Springfield by converting land to non-
compatible uses?
Staff Response: It is unclear what is meant by “non-compatible uses”. It’s possible that
future zone changes could be approved by Lane County in the area currently regulated
under the Metro Plan but whether or not those hypothetical zone changes would ever
happen or if they could create future problem or issues for Springfield in unknown.
o Is SUB/Spfg. and LC in agreement as to water protection per SUBs letter
of Aug 16 and Aug 16 Memo from Steve Hopkins?
Staff Response: No. At this time it appears that both SUB and Springfield’s preferred
method for addressing SUB’s concerns would be for Lane County to adopt SUB’s Drinking
Water Protection Plan outside of the UGB and implement land use regulations to achieve
the Goals of the Plan. Lane County’s position remains that Springfield’s drinking water
quantity/quality would be protected by the existing restrictive zoning regulations in place
outside of the UGB, which is why Lane County was not asked to initially co-adopt the
DWPP outside of the UGB in 1999 or during the Metro Plan Periodic Review order that
required addressing wellhead protection in 2004.
o All of paragraph 5 on page 3 raises numerous issues. Staff response?
Staff Response: See Section 2.1 above, where questions regarding Goal 5 and Metro Plan
inconsistencies are addressed.
The Nature Conservancy:
o Did they submit anything after asking to have record remain open?
Staff Response: They provided a letter thanking the PCs for granting the extension and
indicating that after more carefully reviewing the proposal they had no comment.
City of Spfg. RG on Aug 24 said Mayor has not taken a position.
Metro Plan Phase 1 Boundary Amendment Supplemental Memo #3
Page 11 of 15
Staff Response: Politicians are often ambiguous in their remarks to reporters regarding
issues they have not yet been fully briefed on.... Perhaps this comment could be raised
during deliberations because it is unclear what kind of response Commissioner Sullivan is
looking for from staff.
Are there any other counties where MP and UGB are different?
Staff Response: There are no other counties in Oregon where there is an equivalent to the
Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan in place.
Is it correct to say that prior to HB 3337 the MP had jurisdiction over any land
use issues?
Staff Response: No.
Is it correct to assume all three elected bodies agreed to move forward at a JE
meeting in 09.
Staff Response: Yes. However that direction was for staff to bring this issue forward for
review and possible action by the Joint Elected Officials. It did not necessarily indicate that
support for the proposal was a forgone conclusion.
If so, are all three elected bodies in agreement as to the direction of the
proposal? I understand they need to meet and agree but I am not sure it is
clear that the three jurisdictions asked staffs to move forward with this. There
is an inference throughout the public testimony that the BCC is the only one
"pushing" this forward.
Staff Response: The three jurisdictions did ask staff to pursue this amendment process but
again, the outcome of the process was never preordained.
Is it correct to say Goal 5 contains farmland protection standards in response
to some of the public testimony to the contrary?
Staff Response: Not really. Goal 3 is the Statewide Planning Goal that specifically
addresses protection of farmland. Goal 5 contains provision for the protection of open
spaces, scenic and historic areas and numerous other natural and cultural resources.
Also, does not SUB and others still have Goal 5 protections with respect to
resources.
Staff Response: As proposed, policies and regulations pertaining to Goal 5 would not be
changed by this amendment.
In the same context is not the overriding factor that LC is governed by state
land use rules and public process that insures all interests are considered.
Staff Response: This is correct.
Questions from Randy Hledik (Eugene PC):
Metro Plan Phase 1 Boundary Amendment Supplemental Memo #3
Page 12 of 15
In the 1000 Friends of Oregon letter of Sep 13, 2011, Mia Nelson recommends:
"5) Include revisions to Metro Plan text to make it consistent with boundary
change”, and then raises concerns specifically regarding Statewide Goals 2
and 5.
In Lauri Segel-Vaccher's letter of Aug 16, 2011, and more specifically in her
letter of Sep 13, 2011, she raises the question of whether the proposed
amendment is "internally consistent" with the Metro Plan, and lists 10 points
to elaborate on her concern.
Finding 40 (page 12 of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law) states
that "Findings of consistency of this proposed Metro Plan amendment with the
Statewide Planning Goals are explained elsewhere in this application", and
specifically in regard to Goals 2 and 5, Findings 61 and 64 on pages 19 and 21
address consistency.
Does the Eugene planning and legal staff find that the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law presented by Lane County adequately
address the "internal consistency" requirements of the plan amendment
provisions? If not, please indicate where weaknesses exist, and what may be
appropriate findings to consider.
Staff Response: N/A – Eugene staff has addressed this question:
City of Eugene Response: Testimony from 1000 Friends of Oregon and Lauri Segel‐Vaccher raise
legitimate issues with regard to the draft findings regarding the proposal’s consistency with
other parts of the Metro Plan. However, it is not clear that the proposal would necessarily
create an internal inconsistency or otherwise fail to adequately address applicable criteria.
Prior to final action by the elected officials, Lane County staff (as the primary staff for the
proposal) have additional opportunities to supplement the draft findings to address the issues
raised so that, if the proposed amendment is ultimately approved and appealed to LUBA, the
record will include findings to assist the County and Springfield in providing a legal defense.
And just for a point of clarification, in former Lane County Planning
Commissioner Jozef Zdzienicki's email of Sep 11, 2011, he states that "The
Eugene City Council sided with their planning commission and voted for
denial" of the Delta Sand & Gravel expansion request. Please remind me: did
the Eugene Planning Commission vote to recommend denial of this request?
Staff Response: Yes, both the Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions
recommend denial of the Delta Sand and Gravel application.
3. ALTERNATIVES
As described in the July 15 staff memo there are several interrelated components of the
proposed amendment that the Lane County Planning Commission is being asked to make
recommendations on. To reiterate they are:
#1 – Metro Plan Boundary Update (Ordinance No. PA 1281)
#2 – Parcel Specific UGB (Ordinance No. PA 1283)
#3 – Comp Plan Designations (Ordinance No. PA 1283)
#4 – Residential Zoning Update (Ordinance No. PA 1284)
Metro Plan Phase 1 Boundary Amendment Supplemental Memo #3
Page 13 of 15
#5 – Goal 5 Policy Update (Ordinance 11-XX-XX)
#6 – Riparian Housekeeping Update (Ordinance 11-XX-XX)
A recommendation is being sought from the Eugene and Springfield Planning Commissions
regarding Ordinance No. PA128 only. In addition, PC’s from each jurisdiction may also
choose to provide recommendations regarding the on SUB and Robinson issues, which
have come to light during the course of the public hearing.
Figure 1.1, below, diagrams the various options available to the PCs. For a complete
discussion of these options please refer back to staff’s July 15 memorandum and to
Supplemental Memos #1 and #2
.
Figure 1.1
Page 14 of 15
4. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends support of Items #1 – #6 with a recommendation that the SUB issue be
addressed via an IGA.
Recommend Approval of #1 Metro
Plan Amendment Yes No
Recommend adoption of Rural
Comp Plan Amendment #2
Parcel Specific UGB element
Take no action on Rural
Comp Plan Amendments
# 3,4,5,6
Recommend Approval of Rural
Comp Plan Amendments:
#3 – Comp Plan Designations
#4 – Residential Zoning Update
#5 – Goal 5 Policy Update
#6 – Riparian Housekeeping Update
Provide Recommendation
Regarding Robinson Issue
(ti l)
Recommend “surgical
boundary amendment”
Recommend “surgical
policy amendment”
Provide Recommendation
Regarding SUB Issue
IGA Option Lane County
Drinking Water
Protection Plan
Option
Optional Recommendation
Optional Recommendation
Metro Plan Phase 1 Boundary Amendment Supplemental Memo #3
Metro Plan Phase 1 Boundary Amendment Supplemental Memo #3 Page 15 of 15
5. ATTACHMENTS
1. 8/16 public testimony notes from Donna Robinson
2. 8/16 written comments from Lauri Segel-Vaccher
3. 8/16 written comments from Nena Lovinger
4. 8/17 email from Donna Robinson to the Eugene Planning Commission
5. 8/17 email from Donna Robinson to Tony McCown
6. 8/17 email from Donna Robinson to Springfield & Lane Co. Planning Commissions
7. 9/11 email from Jozef Zdzienicki to the Lane County Planning Commission
8. 9/13 written comments from the Friends of Buford Park and Mt. Pisgah
9. 9/13 written comments from 1000 friends of Oregon
10. 9/13 written comments from Lauri Segel-Vaccher
11. 9/7 email from The Nature Conservancy
12. 8/16 Comments from LandWatch Lane County
13. Memo to the Springfield Planning Commission from City of Springfield staff
Attachment 1-1
Attachment 1-2
Attachment 1-3
Attachment 1-4
Attachment 2-1
Attachment 3-1
Attachment 3-2
Attachment 4-1
Attachment 4-2
Attachment 5-1
Attachment 6-1
Attachment 6-2
Attachment 6-3
Attachment 6-4
Attachment 7-1
Attachment 8-1
Attachment 8-2
Attachment 8-3
Attachment 9-1
Attachment 9-2
Attachment 9-3
Attachment 9-4
Attachment 10-1
Attachment 10-2
Attachment 10-3
Attachment 11-1
Attachment 11-2
1
JONES Brenda
From:Hopsbran [hopsbran@aol.com]
Sent:Tuesday, August 16, 2011 2:46 PM
To:MOTT Gregory; JONES Brenda
Subject:Testimony re: proposed Metro Plan amendment 16August2011
Please forward to Springfield Planning Commission members. Thank you. Robert Emmons
LandWatch Lane County: Protecting Our Natural Heritage From the Coast to the
Cascades P.O. Box 5347, Eugene, OR 97405, (541) 741-3625, www.landwatch.net
Lane County Planning Commission 16 August 2011
Eugene Planning Commission
Springfield Planning Commission
Commissioners:
This country was founded on the principle--and practice--of government by a balance of powers as being in the best
interest of the country as a whole, a check to the tyranny and corruption that too often results from governing power
vested in a single authority. Likewise, through Metro planning Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County benefit singly and as
a whole by having a governing body whose decisions of regional import are based on the separate but equal authority of
its three jurisdictions.
Nevertheless, as reasons for seeking to be the sole agency making decisions affecting over 8000 acres outside Eugene
and Springfield's urban growth boundaries, Lane County claims on its website that "the inability of the MPC to reach
consensus on Blue Water Boats and Delta Sand and Gravel's proposal to expand quarry operations" led to the county
commissioners being "frustrated about the ability of cities to override decisions on county land use issues." And it avers
that joint regulatory authority "appears to be too far reaching when it impedes the county's ability to make land use
decisions on lands beyond city limits and UGBs."
Such a declaration assumes, or appears to assume, that each jurisdiction is or should be an island unto itself. But in fact
land use decisions that affect Eugene and Springfield affect the county as a whole, and certainly the reverse is true.
Though it may serve some to pretend otherwise, air, water, and soil pollution, noise, increases in traffic and other impacts
from, say, a county-approved sand and gravel operation or dwellings and home occupations on rural resource lands, do
not recognize jurisdictional boundaries. Regional or inter-jurisdictional planning could help mitigate or eliminate negative
impacts and protect common resources-- resources such as Howard Buford Park and the new Wildish acquisition, which
are part of a master planning process that has worked long and hard to create a natural and recreational refuge of
regional importance.
But let's be clear. The conservative majority on the Board of Commissioners voted in February of this year to remove the
county from Metro land use planning to allow the planning director, Kent Howe, to make decisions of regional importance
and impact without official oversight and free of troublesome public scrutiny. This is bad governance of a distinctly
pernicious, undemocratic sort, driven by conservative ideology and by development interests, particularly those of the
sand and gravel and timber companies.
With the imperatives of global warming, peak oil and peak water upon us and demanding regional, indeed global
solutions, it is irresponsible at best for Lane County to propose going it alone. For the common good of the county and all
the jurisdictions in it, all the areas in the county's Phase 1 and 2 should remain within the purview of the MPC.
Thank you.
Robert Emmons, President
LandWatch Lane County
Attachment 12-1
2
Attachment 12-2
MEMORANDUM CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DATE OF HEARING: October 25, 2011 PLANNING
TO: Springfield Planning Commission COMMISSION
FROM: Greg Mott, Planning Manager TRANSMITTAL
Steve Hopkins, Senior Planner MEMORANDUM
ITEM TITLE: TYP411-00003 LANE COUNTY METRO PLAN AMENDMENT: Proposed
Amendment to Metro Plan Boundary to reduce the total land area within the Metro Plan east of
Interstate 5 and adopting a new Metro Plan boundary that is coterminous with the City of
Springfield’s Urban Growth Boundary.
ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commissions are asked to deliberate on the merits of the proposal and forward a
recommendation to the Springfield City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners.
ISSUES:
Lane County has initiated a post-acknowledgement plan amendment of the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) diagram. If approved as proposed, the
amendment would relocate the Metro Plan Boundary east of Interstate 5 to be in exact
agreement with the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary. This boundary change would reduce
the area within the Metro Plan by approximately 8,000 acres and place this land within the
boundaries of the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan (RCP). Unlike the Metro Plan’s
provisions for 2-and 3-party joint land use authority for these lands Lane County government
has exclusive authority for all land use decisions inside the boundaries of the RCP.
This memo addresses issues raised during the initial public hearing on July 19th and during the
hearing extension to just prior to the continued public hearing on August 16, 2011. Additional
persons testified or submitted written testimony during the August 16th public hearing and during
the extended written comment period ending on September 13, 2011. The Lane County staff
has provided responses to this testimony in the memorandum titled “Supplemental
Memorandum #3”, dated October 12, 2001.
DISCUSSION:
The planning commissions of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County conducted a joint public
hearing on this proposal on July 19, 2011. During this hearing, the following individuals
addressed the planning commissions: Ms. Tamara Johnson on behalf of Springfield Utility
Board; Ms. Donna Robinson, 87746 Collins Lane, Springfield, OR property owner representing
herself; Mr. Kevin Matthews, P.O. Box 1588, Eugene, OR on behalf of Friends of Eugene; Mr.
Rodney Meyers, 6731 Thurston Road, Springfield, OR property owner representing himself; and
Mr. Tim Marshall, 32260 Old Highway 34, Tangent, OR on behalf of property owner Knife River
Corporation-Northwest.
Attachment 13-1
In general, Ms. Robinson and Mr. Marshall were in favor of this proposal; Mr. Matthews was
opposed to this proposal on the basis of numerous inconsistencies with the Metro Plan,
inadequate citizen involvement, and the unprecedented magnitude of the proposal; Ms.
Johnson was not opposed to the proposal provided SUB water source areas were protected;
and Mr. Meyers was not opposed to the proposal provided his existing commercial use on
residentially zoned property could continue under pre-existing or “Grandfather” entitlements.
During the hearing a request was made to extend the written record to provide additional
opportunity to place evidence into the record. The planning commissions agreed to continue
the public hearing until August 16, 2011 thereby providing interested parties four weeks to
submit written materials. Because of this hearing/record extension the planning commissions
postponed deliberations until after the close of the record the night of August 16th.
On August 16th the planning commissions reconvened their joint public hearing; accepted public
testimony into the record that had been submitted after the initial hearing of July 19th; and heard
new testimony from those present at the continued public hearing. Written testimony submitted
between July 19th and August 16th included: a letter from Ms. Mia Nelson, on behalf of 1000
Friends of Oregon; a letter from Mr. Robert Emmons on behalf of LandWatch Lane County; a
letter from Mr. Tim Marshall, representing Knife River Corporation-Northwest; a letter from staff
at the Springfield Utility Board; and copies of several e-mail messages from Ms. Donna
Robinson to various Springfield and Lane County officials. Ms. Robinson and Mr. Marshall
generally supported the proposal; Ms. Nelson and Mr. Emmons opposed the proposal; and the
Springfield Utility Board was generally neutral provided the Utility’s water source areas receive
the same protection from Lane County currently provided by the City of Springfield as a partner
in the Metro Plan, or by maintaining a Springfield City Council role as decision maker for plan
amendments located within the 1-5 year time of travel zone for drinking water source areas.
A number of speakers provided oral testimony during the extended public hearing on August
16th. These speakers included: Ms. Mia Nelson, 1000 Friends of Oregon, 220 E 11th, Suite 5,
Eugene, OR; Mr. Robert Emmons, 40093 Little Fall Creek Road, Fall Creek, OR; Ms. Nena
Lovinger, 40093 Little Fall Creek Road, Fall Creek, OR; Ms. Laurie Segel-Vaccher, 1210 E.29th
Place, Eugene, OR; Mr. Kevin Matthews, Friends of Eugene, P.O. Box 1588 Eugene, OR; Ms.
Donna Robinson, 87746 Collins Lane, Springfield, OR; Ms. Tamara Johnson, Springfield Utility
Board, 202 South 18th Street, Springfield, OR; and Mr. Steven Coatsworth, 1338 Jefferson
Street #B, Eugene, OR. As with the testimony submitted at the hearing on July 19th and
submitted into the written record during the hearing/record extension, speakers on August 16th
favored the proposal; opposed the proposal; or were neutral provided the change in jurisdiction
did not negatively impact their property interests.
During the public testimony a request was made to extend the record to provide additional
opportunity to place evidence into the record. The planning commissions agreed to leave the
written record open until 5 p.m. the evening of September 13, 2011 thereby providing interested
parties four weeks to submit written materials. Because of this record extension the planning
commission postponed deliberation until a date could be arranged for this final element of the
planning commission public hearing process. The planning commissions subsequently agreed
to continue deliberations on October 25, 2011 in Harris Hall.
Testimony in Support of the Proposal
Ms. Donna Robinson and Mr. Tim Marshall submitted oral and written testimony in support of
the proposed jurisdictional amendment shifting the land use governance of 8,000 acres of land
Attachment 13-2
from the Metro Plan to the Rural Comprehensive Plan; from joint government jurisdiction to sole
jurisdiction by Lane County. The two proponents submitted different reasons for supporting this
proposal:
Ms. Robinson has just over 8 acres of land east of the Springfield UGB that is zoned Lane
County RR-2 (2 acre minimum lot size) that she would like to configure into 2 parcels of
approximately 4 acres each. Because this land is inside the Metro Plan boundary the Metro
Plan limits the “minimum lot size for rural residential areas”…to… “five acres.” (Metro Plan, page
II-G-10). Ms. Robinson does not have enough land to create two 5-acre parcels. The Metro
Plan does not have a waiver, exception or variance process; only an amendment process. If
Ms. Robinson’s land is excluded from the Metro Plan and included in the RCP the 5-acre
minimum lot size Metro Plan policy no longer applies and instead the provisions of Lane Code
Chapter 16, Section 16.290(6)(a) applies: “For RR zoned areas that are located inside
developed and committed areas and outside the boundaries of areas designated by the
RCP as unincorporated communities, the minimum area requirement for the creation of
lots or parcels for residential purposes shall be 2, 5 or 10 acres as indicated by the Lane
County Zoning Maps; (emphasis added). The Lane County Zoning Maps show Ms.
Robinson’s land is zoned RR-2.
Ms. Robinson indicated in her testimony that she’d spoken with Lane County staff about options
to resolve this conflict and was told that either the boundary must be adjusted to exclude her
property; the Plan text requiring all RR properties to observe 5 acre minimum lot size must be
amended; or, the county initiated proposal to shrink the boundary to match Springfield’s UGB
must be approved. Though this information is technically correct, all of these identified
amendments are classified as Type I Metro Plan amendments that can only be initiated by a
governing body: “A Type I amendment shall include any change to the urban growth
boundary (UGB) or the Metro Plan Plan Boundary (Plan Boundary) of the Metro Plan; any
change that requires a goal exception to be taken under Statewide Planning Goal 2 that
is not related to the UGB expansion; and any amendment to the Metro Plan text that is
non-site specific.” Policy 3(a), page IV-2. Metro Plan rules regarding the initiation of
amendments is based on classification: “A Type I amendment may be initiated at the
discretion of any of the three governing bodies.” Policy 4(a), page IV-2. The limitation on
who may initiate Type I amendments means that neither Ms. Robinson nor any other citizen or
property owner is allowed to initiate a Type I amendment [that might resolve her plan-zone
conflict]. Ms. Robinson has stated several times that her motives do not extend beyond her
property lines therefore her only option is to testify in support of the proposal regardless of any
other effects that might result from this amendment.
Mr. Marshall submitted a letter on behalf of Knife River Corporation-Northwest in support of the
proposed boundary change because it would “enable the Lane County Commissioners to
independently make decisions on land use applications for property east of I-5…located outside
of the Springfield UGB but inside the current Metro Plan boundary. As many have agreed, the
proposal will improve decision-making in the County and all affected areas.” Page 1, August 9,
2011 letter from Knife River Corporation-Northwest. The final paragraph of this letter reiterates
Knife River’s support for autonomous county land use authority for this area: “We respectfully
request the Planning Commissions to recommend that Lane County be allowed to pursue
independence in land use decision-making…within the proposed amendment area.”
While the support from Knife River for this proposal is clear, there is an additional message in
this letter that is just as unequivocal; the commissions should reject any proposals by SUB and
the City of Springfield for either: 1) a continuing decision-making role for the Springfield City
Attachment 13-3
Council whenever proposed land use actions would or could jeopardize the source water of the
Springfield Utility Board; or 2) county adoption of a SUB-style drinking water protection
ordinance for this land. The Knife River letter asserts that issues related to water quality of
surface and groundwater is regulated by the Department of Environmental Quality and that any
conflicts between agricultural uses, aggregate mining activities and impacts on groundwater are
subject to compliance with Goal 5; such compliance is not affected by the presence or absence
of the Plan Boundary of the Metro Plan. On page 2 of this letter, Knife River expresses the
opinion that existing rules and processes are sufficient to protect SUB’s (Springfield’s) drinking
water.
SUB’s proposals are unnecessary and directly contrary to the stated goal of the county’s
proposal, to allow independent land use decision-making by the County on the property
between the city’s UGB and the current Metro Plan boundary.”
“Lane County’s code requires that uses that might result in contamination of groundwater first
obtain land use approval. The County Board of Commissioners is (more than) competent to
review any such proposals.”
“SUB has also stated that it has a concern about converting farmland from farm use to
aggregate mining use, as a basis for its counterproposals. The resolution of the
agriculture/aggregate conflict is a function of the State’s long-standing Goal 5 rule and process,
which is not affected by the proposal. The Goal 5 rule contains farmland protection standards,
and the Goal 5 process requires that potential conflicts such as discharges to groundwater (and
many other potential conflicts) be minimized before any aggregate mining occurs. Under the
County’s proposal, SUB will continue to have the same opportunity it now has to testify and
present evidence of potential impacts of all land use applications within the area affected by the
County’s proposal.”
“We respectfully request the Planning Commissions to recommend that Lane County…refrain
from entering into special agreements, or from retaining or imposing separate boundaries within
the proposed amendment area. SUB’s request that Lane County adopt the Springfield Drinking
Water Protection Plan should also be rejected, because it is beyond the scope of the current
process. Existing, substantive law protects SUB’s interests now, and the Lane County proposal
does not alter nor diminish those protections.”
Mr. Marshall’s testimony raises some relevant points as well as identifies some rather complex
goal relationships. Goal 5 does identify drinking water as a specific resource; however, the
relevance of that resource varies depending upon the purposes for such protection. For
example, state law requires cities and counties to prepare public facility plans appropriate to
their urban/rural circumstances: “To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural
development. “ (Goal 11 Public Facilities and Services)
“Urban and rural development shall be guided and supported by types and levels of urban and
rural public facilities and services appropriate for, but limited to, the needs and requirements of
the urban, urbanizable, and rural areas to be served. A provision for key facilities shall be
included in each plan. Cities or counties shall develop and adopt a public facility plan for areas
within an urban growth boundary containing a population greater than 2,500 persons. Counties
shall develop and adopt community public facility plans regulating facilities and services for
certain unincorporated communities outside urban growth boundaries as specified by
Commission rules.”
Attachment 13-4
Public Facilities Plan – A public facility plan is a support document or documents to a
comprehensive plan. The facility plan describes the water, sewer and transportation facilities
which are to support the land uses designated in the appropriate acknowledged comprehensive
plan or plans within an urban growth boundary containing a population greater than 2,500.
Community Public Facilities Plan – A support document or documents to a comprehensive
plan applicable to specific unincorporated communities outside UGBs. The community public
facility plan describes the water and sewer services and facilities which are to support the land
uses designated in the plan for the unincorporated community.
The affected area does not include an unincorporated community therefore the rural level of
water service required by Goal 11 is not applicable in any of this area. However, the City relies
on these drinking water source areas for compliance with Goal 11 within the UGB, including the
ability to provide water service to all future planned development. City staff believes the city’s
continuing obligation to provide water quality and capacity consistent with the purpose and
requirements of Goal 5 and Goal 11 objectively supports the joint SUB-City proposal to provide
for an IGA between Lane County and the City of Springfield specifying Springfield participation
in land use proposals occurring in the 1-5 year time of travel zones until such time as Lane
County adopts a drinking water protection plan consistent with the plan in effect inside
Springfield’s UGB.
Testimony in Opposition to the Proposal
Written testimony in opposition to the proposal that was submitted prior to the August 16th
extended public hearing was provided by Ms. Mia Nelson, 1000 Friends of Oregon, and Mr.
Robert Emmons, Land Watch Lane County.
Ms. Nelson raises the following issues in her testimony in opposition to the proposal:
“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 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 longstanding 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
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
Attachment 13-5
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.”
These points raised by Ms. Nelson speak to joint policy decisions the three jurisdictions agreed
were important at the time of initial acknowledgment in 1982. Subsequent to that agreement
each jurisdiction has considered the question of joint administration within the context of
jurisdiction-specific planning efforts, most particularly when the jurisdictions were subject to
state-mandated periodic review in 1986 and again in 1994. During both of these planning
actions the cities and county found themselves subject to evaluations that were simultaneously
regional and specific to the cities and county. Goal 5 for example, was initially started as an
outcome of the Metro Plan Update in 1987 and later became a requirement of the 1994 periodic
review. Even though the Metro Plan was a deliberate collaboration of the three governments
and approved by the state, compliance with Goal 5 was undertaken separately, adopted
separately, and acknowledged separately based on jurisdictional authority.
At approximately the same time periodic review was underway, the cities and Lane County
jointly amended the participation and jurisdictional roles for different classification of Metro Plan
amendments. Opinions may differ as to why these changes came about, but in any case the
three governments agreed that the two cities would exercise full autonomy for site-specific text
and plan map amendments wholly within their respective city limits; that each city and Lane
County would jointly decide these same class of proposals when located between the city limits
of the “home city” and the home city’s UGB, and between the home city’s UGB and Plan
Boundary. The non-home city could opt in to these latter two actions upon a determination of
“regional impact.” All three government’s participation remains a requirement for amendments
to non-site specific plan text, to amendments to the UGB or Plan boundary that cross the
Willamette or McKenzie Rivers or a ridgeline into a new basin, and amendments that involve a
goal exception not related to a UGB expansion. These changes were co-adopted in 1994.
An additional change in governance occurred during the 2007 Oregon legislative session when
the legislature enacted HB 3337 requiring each city, separately from the other, to adopt
independent UGBs. The establishment of these UGBs requires co-adoption by Lane County.
“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.”
Attachment 13-6
Ms. Nelson is partially correct in saying the cities will lose ability to prevent harmful land use
changes; the cities will lose the ability to prevent any land use changes. The current
amendment provisions of the Metro Plan require home-city participation for amendments
between the home city UGB and Plan Boundary, and require approval by both jurisdictions.
Additionally, the non-home city may participate in the decision upon a pre-hearing determination
of regional impact. If any participating city concludes that an amendment in this area does not
satisfy approval criteria that city may choose not to approve the application and the proposal
cannot be approved by the county and other city, or the county alone should the conclusion of
those governments be that the proposal does satisfy the criteria. Notwithstanding Ms. Nelson’s
contention that the cities won’t be able to prevent “harmful” land use changes, the County and
the cities are bound by the same land use laws applicable in this area, and with regard to all but
a fraction of this land, that means Goal 3 Agriculture, Goal 4 Forest Lands, and Goal 5 Natural
Resources; the Metro Plan cannot pre-empt the applicability of these goals. The Metro Plan
can and does impose some additional limitations in this area, including the previously
mentioned 5 acre minimum lot size on RR 2 zoning; expansion of existing exception areas (no
such designation east of I-5); and application of Lane Code 16.290 instead of 16.231 which
allows a modest increase in permitted uses (see attachment #13 of 7/19/11 packet) on Rural
Residential lands within the Metro Plan Boundary.
“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,
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.”
Ms. Nelson rightfully describes this area as an important regional asset, and that could be
understating its true, enduring value. However, Springfield’s decision-making participation in
this area or any other area between the UGB and Plan Boundary is limited to amendments to
the existing Metro Plan designation; master planning does not fall under this responsibility
unless it includes a Metro Plan diagram amendment. An outcome of the proposed Plan
Boundary change would allow the County to pursue a plan diagram change of the Rural
Comprehensive Plan’s designation of this property and make any decision on that proposal
unilaterally.
“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
Attachment 13-7
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.”
Ms. Nelson is correct; this area represents the land that must be considered during any Goal 14
Urbanization analysis (UGB expansion). While the presence of any existing exception areas
must be considered as a higher priority than farm or forest lands for inclusion within an urban
growth boundary, these exception areas already exist whether they are located within the Metro
Plan’s boundary or within the Lane Rural Comprehensive Plan. All other land in this area is
subject either to Goal 3, Goal 4 or Goal 5 and the Metro Plan does not and cannot prohibit
activities allowed by state law under these Goals. Additionally, any activities allowed by state
law for lands so designated would not provide a basis for a future goal exception. This is not to
say that a goal exception could not be initiated, and such an action would be the sole jurisdiction
of Lane County, but transferring jurisdiction from the Metro Plan to the Lane Rural
Comprehensive Plan does not increase the likelihood of a goal exception because the same
state laws apply to all lands outside of urban growth boundaries.
Ms. Nelson’s testimony includes a recommendation to scale back the proposal:
“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 considered to amend the Metro Plan boundary to exclude these four small residential
parcels, as well as others with similar characteristics.”
This alternative is consistent with the amendment procedures in Chapter IV of the Metro Plan
and so is available to the elected officials should they choose to modify this proposal.
Mr. Robert Emmons raises the following issues in testimony submitted for the August 16
continued public hearing:
“This country was founded on the principle--and practice--of government by a balance
of powers as being in the best interest of the country as a whole, a check to the tyranny
Attachment 13-8
and corruption that too often results from governing power vested in a single authority.
Likewise, through Metro planning Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County benefit singly
and as a whole by having a governing body whose decisions of regional import are
based on the separate but equal authority of its three jurisdictions.
“Nevertheless, as reasons for seeking to be the sole agency making decisions affecting
over 8000 acres outside Eugene and Springfield's urban growth boundaries, Lane
County claims on its website that "the inability of the MPC to reach consensus on Blue
Water Boats and Delta Sand and Gravel's proposal to expand quarry operations" led to
the county commissioners being "frustrated about the ability of cities to override
decisions on county land use issues." And it avers that joint regulatory authority
"appears to be too far reaching when it impedes the county's ability to make land use
decisions on lands beyond city limits and UGBs."
“Such a declaration assumes, or appears to assume, that each jurisdiction is or should
be an island unto itself. But in fact land use decisions that affect Eugene and Springfield
affect the county as a whole, and certainly the reverse is true.
“Though it may serve some to pretend otherwise, air, water, and soil pollution, noise,
increases in traffic and other impacts from, say, a county-approved sand and gravel
operation or dwellings and home occupations on rural resource lands, do not recognize
jurisdictional boundaries. Regional or inter-jurisdictional planning could help mitigate or
eliminate negative impacts and protect common resources-- resources such as Howard
Buford Park and the new Wildish acquisition, which are part of a master planning
process that has worked long and hard to create a natural and recreational refuge of
regional importance.
“But let's be clear. The conservative majority on the Board of Commissioners voted in
February of this year to remove the county from Metro land use planning to allow the
planning director, Kent Howe, to make decisions of regional importance and impact
without official oversight and free of troublesome public scrutiny. This is bad governance
of a distinctly pernicious, undemocratic sort, driven by conservative ideology and by
development interests, particularly those of the sand and gravel and timber companies.
“With the imperatives of global warming, peak oil and peak water upon us and
demanding regional, indeed global solutions, it is irresponsible at best for Lane County
to propose going it alone. For the common good of the county and all the jurisdictions in
it, all the areas in the county's Phase 1 and 2 should remain within the purview of the
MPC.
Mr. Emmons testimony speaks to his opinions regarding governance structure within
the metropolitan region and what he considers to be a superior model (the Metro Plan)
for addressing regional issues. Notwithstanding Mr. Emmons strong sentiments and
clearly articulated objections, this testimony does not address applicable plan
amendment criteria that would support his opinions and conclusions, or include citation
of statutory provisions that would require this land to remain within the boundaries of the
Attachment 13-9
Metro Plan rather than be absorbed within the boundaries of the Lane Rural
Comprehensive Plan.
While the testimony of Ms. Nelson and Mr. Emmons accurately describes some of the
governance outcomes that will occur if this proposal is implemented, the state laws that
will apply to this land under the sole authority of Lane County are the same state laws
that apply to this land today under joint governance. The joint elected officials may
consider this Plan Boundary amendment as provided by Chapter IV of the Metro Plan
and Oregon land use law.
Options
1. Recommend approval.
2. Recommend approval with changes.
3. Recommend denial.
4. Make no recommendation.
During the deliberations, staff will be available to address any questions.
Attachment 13-10