HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014 10 23 Joint
NAME OF MEETING: Joint Planning Commission (Eugene, Springfield, Lane County)
DATE OF MEETING: October 23, 2014
TO: Brenda Jones, Chris Rogers, Carolyn Burke
RECORDED BY: Lynn Taylor
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N
10/27/14 lt Draft to Staff
(Date & Initials)
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
MINUTES—Joint Planning Commission Public Hearing October 23, 2014 Page 1
M I N U T E S
Joint Planning Commission
Library Meeting Room—225 East 5th Avenue
Springfield, Oregon
October 23, 2014
7 p.m.
PRESENT: Greg James, Chair; Johny Kirschenmann, Steve Moe, Tim Vohs, Nick Nelson
(Springfield Planning Commission); Ryan Sisson, Chair; Larry Thorp, Charles
Conrad, Dwight Coon, Randy Hledik, James Peterson, Gary Rose, Jason Thiesfel
Lane County Planning Commission); William Randall, Chair; John Jaworski, Richard
Duncan, John Barofsky, Jeffery Mills (Eugene Planning Commission; Mark Metzger,
Len Goodwin, Lauren King (City of Springfield staff); Matt Laird, Keir Miller (Lane
County staff); Carolyn Burke, Ann Davies, Alissa Hansen (City of Eugene staff);
Emily Jerome, Lane Livability Consortium; Bill Kloos, Oregon Land Use Law.
Mr. James convened the meeting. He announced that the Eugene, Springfield and Lane County
planning commissions were meeting jointly to conduct public hearings to consider two issues:
amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan) and amendments to the
Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County regulating codes for the purpose of implementing previously
approved changes to Chapter IV of the Metro Plan.
Those present introduced themselves.
Mr. James noted that a public hearing would be conducted on each issue. The planning commissions
would not make final decisions, but would make recommendations on the proposed amendments to
their respective elected officials.
Mr. Metzger provided a brief overview of the agenda and order of proceedings.
LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING
1. Amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan "Metro Plan"
Allowing for the Adoption of City-Specific Comprehensive Plans and Policies.
Mr. James opened the public hearing for the Springfield Planning Commission. He noted that those
wishing to testify would have five minutes and encouraged written comments as well.
Mr. Sisson opened the public hearing for the Lane County Planning Commission.
Mr. Randall opened the public hearing for the Eugene Planning Commission.
Ms. Jerome stated that state law required every city to have a comprehensive plan that included an
urban growth boundary (UGB), within which was a 20-year supply of land for housing, employment,
parks, schools and public facilities, including transportation. She said historically Eugene and
Springfield had addressed those requirements in partnership, with co-adoption by Lane County,
through the Metro Plan, which was the guiding policy document for both cities. She said the specific
MINUTES—Joint Planning Commission Public Hearing October 23, 2014 Page 2
purpose of the proposed amendments was to enable each city to move forward with a new approach to
comprehensive planning by developing independent city-specific comprehensive plans that worked in
conjunction with the Metro Plan and might eventually supplant it.
Ms. Jerome said HB 3337, passed by the legislature in 2007, mandated that Eugene and Springfield
establish their own separate UGBs. She said the cities were still required to engage in regional
planning for transportation and public facilities and there were many other areas in which regional
collaboration would continue. The proposed amendments were not intended to make substantive
changes to policy direction or designations that applied to land. They served three purposes:
• Revisions to enable each city to independently establish a city-specific comprehensive plan
with its own UGB
• Update and explain the status of the Metro Plan to provide users and readers with an
understanding of its evolving nature
• Revision or removal of text that no longer applied
Ms. Davies said it had been brought to the attention of staff that there were discrepancies in the Metro
Plan Diagram Map and Metro Plan Boundary map included in the proposed amendments; some land
designations were inconsistent with those in the officially adopted 2004 Metro Plan Diagram. She said
staff had confirmed there were discrepancies and recommended that the planning commissions remove
those maps.
Ms. Jerome clarified that the Eugene agenda packet contained only the proposed maps; Springfield
and Lane County agenda packets included both the current and proposed maps.
Mr. Hledik asked annexations would be guided if the language in Metro Plan Policy 12 regarding
criteria for the annexation of land by Eugene or Springfield that was not contiguous to their boundaries
was removed. Ms. Jerome said those types of non-contiguous annexations had not been possible since
the Lane County Boundary Commission became defunct in 2007. The Boundary Commissions had the
authority to annex land that was not contiguous to city limits and when it was eliminated annexations
in Lane County became subject to statutory annexation laws, which did not allow annexation of land
that was not contiguous with city limits.
Mr. James explained the rules for providing testimony.
Bill Kloos, Oregon Land Use Law, Eugene, spoke on behalf of his client Environ-Metal Products,
LLC. He noted he had submitted a letter dated October 22, 2014, to the Joint Planning Commission
setting forth his concerns regarding the Metro Plan enabling amendments. He said the proposed Metro
Plan Diagram map was wrong as it was not based on adopted 2004 Metro Plan Diagram, but rather on
a version generated by Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) that was printed in a different manner
than the official version. He thanked staff for their recommendation to remove the maps.
Mr. Kloos expressed concerned that it was not possible to access online an accurate copy, including
site-specific amendments, of the official 2004 Metro Plan Diagram. He said maintaining an accurate
Metro Plan Diagram that was accessible to the public was a long-standing problem.
In response to a question from Mr. Peterson, Ms. Davies said that removing the proposed Metro Plan
Diagram from the proposed amendments meant that the 2004 adopted version would still be in effect.
MINUTES—Joint Planning Commission Public Hearing October 23, 2014 Page 3
Mr. Goodwin stated that actions of the Lane County and Springfield planning commissions in 2011
and 2013 established a Springfield UGB; that UGB was consistent with the adopted 2004 Metro Plan
Diagram and subsequent amendments. He said the issue raised by Mr. Kloos was a matter for Eugene
and Lane County as the property was not within the City of Springfield.
In response to a question from Mr. Peterson, Ms. King said that even though the proposed Metro Plan
Diagram was accurate for Springfield staff recommended continuing with the existing 2004 version of
the Metro Plan Diagram to avoid confusion or multiple diagrams.
Mr. James determined there was no one else wishing to testify.
Mr. Kirschenmann, seconded by Mr. Moe, moved to close the public hearing
and record for the Springfield Planning Commission. The motion passed
unanimously, 5:0.
Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Jaworski, moved to close the public hearing
and the record for the Eugene Planning Commission. The motion passed
unanimously, 5:0.
Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Conrad, moved to close the public hearing and
the record for the Lane County Planning Commission. The motion passed
unanimously, 8:0.
Mr. James observed that amending Chapter IV of the Metro Plan last year was a difficult and
challenging process. He supported the current proposal and commended the efforts of staff.
Mr. James, Mr. Sisson and Mr. Randall determined that members of all three planning commissions
were in agreement to conduct joint rather than separate deliberations.
Mr. Hledik commended staff for its management of the process. He felt that the findings were
complete, accurate, comprehensive and thorough.
Mr. Kirschenmann complimented the staff's work and concurred with its recommendations.
Mr. James determined there were no further comments or questions from Springfield Planning
Commission members and called for a motion.
Mr. Nelson, seconded by Mr. Moe, moved to recommend to the Springfield
City Council approval of the amendments to the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan allowing for the adoption of the city-specific
comprehensive plans and policies, with the following conditions: Metro Plan
Diagram and Metro Plan Boundary were to be left out (Attachment 4, pages
1-2 and Attachment 5, pages 1-2). The motion passed unanimously, 5:0.
Mr. Randall determined there were no further comments or questions from Eugene Planning
Commission members and called for a motion.
MINUTES—Joint Planning Commission Public Hearing October 23, 2014 Page 4
Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Jaworski, moved to approve the amendments in
Attachment A, but remove the maps in Attachments C and D. The motion
passed unanimously, 5:0.
Mr. Sisson determined there were no further deliberations from Lane County Planning Commission
members and called for a motion.
Mr. Thorp, seconded by Mr. Peterson, moved the Lane County Planning
Commission recommend to the Lane County Board of Commissioners that it
adopt the proposed Ordinance PA 1313, excluding Exhibits B and C. The
motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
2. Amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan "Metro Plan"
Allowing for the Adoption of City-Specific Comprehensive Plans and Policies.
Mr. James opened the public hearing for the Springfield Planning Commission.
Mr. Sisson opened the public hearing for the Lane County Planning Commission.
Mr. Randall opened the public hearing for the Eugene Planning Commission.
Mr. Miller said the purpose of the hearing was to consider and make recommendations on a package
of code amendments to the Springfield, Eugene and Lane County building codes. He said ORS
197.175 required each county and city in Oregon to develop a comprehensive plan and enact land use
regulations to implement that plan. He said the amendments would codify previous amendments to
Chapter IV of the Metro Plan and lay the groundwork to move away from the Metro Plan and allow
Eugene and Springfield to develop their own comprehensive plans and establish independent UGBs.
Mr. Miller pointed out that the Metro Plan required each of the jurisdictions to adopt substantively
identical language. He said the materials in each commission's agenda packet might look somewhat
different in format, but the content had been reviewed by staff and legal counsel and determined to be
substantively identical. He briefly reviewed the four main components of the proposed amendments:
• Removal of references to regional impact
• Revised conflict resolution procedures: failure to reach unanimous agreement on a Metro Plan
amendment would no longer be referred to the Metropolitan Policy Committee for resolution;
the matter would now be referred to the Lane County Board of Commissioners and the
mayor(s) of the city or cities involved for conflict resolution
• Aligned the type of Metro Plan amendment (I, II, or III) with the corresponding number of
jurisdictions involved
• Revised the amendment process for UGBs or boundary amendments to the Metro Plan
Mr. Miller said staff findings of consistency with Statewide Planning Goals were included in the
agenda materials. He clarified that the Eugene Planning Commission would be making
recommendation regarding the Eugene Code that was applicable inside the city limits; the Springfield
Planning Commission would be making recommendations regarding the Springfield Code that was
applicable within the city limits and within the Urban Transition Area within the UGB; and Lane
MINUTES—Joint Planning Commission Public Hearing October 23, 2014 Page 5
County was required to co-adopt the amendments and the Planning Commission would be making
recommendations regarding Lane Code Chapter XII.
In response to a question from Mr. Peterson, Mr. Miller said the changes reflected in the proposed
amendments had already been approved at the policy level; the amendments would codify those
changes.
Mr. James determined that there was no one wishing to testify.
Mr. Moe, seconded by Mr. Kirschenmann, moved to close the public hearing
and record for the Springfield Planning Commission. The motion passed
unanimously, 5:0.
Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Jaworski, moved to close the public hearing
and the record for the Eugene Planning Commission. The motion passed
unanimously, 5:0.
Mr. Peterson, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved to close the public hearing and
the record for the Lane County Planning Commission. The motion passed
unanimously, 8:0.
Mr. Barofsky drew commissioners' attention to the code amendment language relating to conflict
resolution. He expressed concern with the language that considered a plan amendment to be denied if
there was no recommendation back to the governing bodies within six months of the referral of the
disputed matter to the chair of the Lane County Board of Commissions and the mayor of the involved
jurisdiction. He cautioned that could result in a pocket veto if the mayor or chair failed to act, even
though the majority on their commission or council might have an opposing opinion. He said Eugene
staff had indicated there would be administrative rules and operating agreements that would prevent
that from occurring in the city, but it was important that the other jurisdictions be aware of the issue
and have operating agreements in place to avoid a pocket veto of a Metro Plan amendment.
Mr. Peterson said there should be three parties involved in resolution of a conflict between two of the
parties
Mr. Randall commented that Mr. Barofsky was suggesting that each jurisdiction should assure that its
governing body had procedures and operating agreements in place that would prevent a pocket veto
thwarting the will of the majority.
Mr. Barofsky reiterated that his primary concern was the addition of language establishing a timeframe
of six months, after which an amendment was deemed to be denied if no recommendation was
forthcoming.
Mr. Thorp pointed out that the City of Eugene had a mayor elected by the public, while the chair of the
Lane County Board of Commissioners was elected by the other commissioners. He felt the political
dynamics were different and it was unlikely the commission's chair would thwart the majority's will.
Mr. Miller said a set of conflict resolution procedures, similar to those now used by the MPC, could be
recommended to the Board of Commissioners to alleviate concerns.
MINUTES—Joint Planning Commission Public Hearing October 23, 2014 Page 6
Mr. Jaworski asked how administrative rules or operating agreements could override the code
language stating that an amendment was denied if there was no recommendation within six months.
Ms. Burke replied that the Eugene City Council did not object to the proposed conflict resolution
process, but had made clear its desire to have the mayor check in with the council before taking any
course of action or making a decision. She said the council's operating agreements would be updated
to assure that happened.
Mr. Jaworski was not certain the request for a check in by the mayor fully addressed the concern
expressed by Mr. Barofsky.
Mr. Goodwin said the Springfield City Council had a similar discussion about the proposed conflict
resolution procedures and had expressed full confidence that the mayor would represent the views of
the body as a whole, whether or not the mayor held the same view. He said the council supported the
timeline for action so that conflict resolution did not become an interminable process.
Mr. Hledik asked if there were options for appeal if an amendment was determined to be denied if
there was no action within six months. Mr. Goodwin replied that an appeal could be made and the six
month termination date was necessary in order to establish a denial and allow for an appeal to be
made.
Mr. Peterson said there was recourse to a pocket veto; the matter could be taken to the Land Use
Board of Appeals (LUBA) for resolution. Conflict resolution was LUBA's task and he felt the six-
month period language should be left in the proposed amendments.
Mr. James said both Eugene and Springfield could establish operating agreements and although that
was beyond the purview of planning commissions, the commissions' recommendation could include
advice to have those agreements in place.
Mr. James and Mr. Randall determined there were no further comments or questions from Eugene and
Springfield planning commission members.
Mr. Sisson suggested that the Lane County Planning Commission allow the Eugene and Springfield
commissions to take action and then capture those actions in its own motions.
Mr. Nelson, seconded by Mr. Vohs, moved to recommend approval to the
Springfield City Council the amendments to the Springfield Development
Code Section 5.14-100 implementing adopted changes to the Metro Plan
Chapter IV. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0.
Mr. Jaworski, seconded by Mr. Mills, moved to recommend approval to the
Eugene City Council the amendments to Eugene Code 9.0500, 9.7055,
9.7702, 9.750. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0.
Mr. Sisson determined there were no further comments or questions from Lane County Planning
Commission members.
Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Peterson, moved to recommend to the Lane
County Board of Commissioners that it adopt Ordinance No. 14-15. The
motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
MINUTES—Joint Planning Commission Public Hearing October 23, 2014 Page 7
Mr. Thorp, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved that the Lane County Planning
Commission recommended to the Lane County Board of Commissioners
approval of proposed Ordinance No. 14-12, amending the Lane Code to
incorporate changes necessitated by changes to the Metro Plan. The motion
passed unanimously, 8:0.
Mr. James adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
(Recorded by Lynn Taylor)