Loading...
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: ƒ 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. ƒ 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. ƒ Coordination between counties and cities takes place across Oregon in areas where there is no equivalent to the Metro Plan. ƒ This proposal would not abolish the Metro Plan and Lane County will continue to be a participating Metro Plan partner. ƒ 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): ƒ 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 ƒ 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. ƒ 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 ƒ 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. ƒ 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. ƒ 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. ƒ 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. ƒ Is it correct to say that prior to HB 3337 the MP had jurisdiction over any land use issues? Staff Response: No. ƒ 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. ƒ 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. ƒ 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. ƒ 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. ƒ 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 ƒ 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.  ƒ 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