Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023 04 04 Minutes Joint LC_EUG_SPFD Planning Commission Meeting Approved 1 Tuesday, April 4th, 2023 In person at the Goodpasture Room, Lane County, & Jesse Maine Room, Springfield City Hall & via Zoom 6:00 pm Work Session Lane County Chair Kashinsky started the joint work session of the Lane County, Eugene, Springfield Planning Commissions and each chairperson called the meeting to order at 6:05 pm. Planning Commissioners present: Lane County: Chair Kashinsky, Vice Chair Choate, Kaylor, Wihtol, Hadley, Snider, Lay Absent: Commissioners Dignam, Peacock City of Eugene: Chair Isaacson, Beeson, Edwards, Lear, Ramey Absent: Commissioners Behling, Fragala, City of Springfield: Chair Salazar, Vice Chair Bergen, Buck, Thompson, Schmunk, Stout, Rhoads-Dey Absent: None LCOG Staff: Anne Davies, Principal Attorney, Laura Ruggeri Associate Attorney were working as consultants for Lane County in this matter. Lane County Staff: Jared Bauder, Associate Planner; Dan Hurley, DPW Director; Rob Woodard, Senior Engineer; Amber Bell, Planning Director City of Eugene Staff: Elena Domingo, Assistant Planer; Alissa Hansen, Planning Director; Emily Jerome, Deputy City Attorney City of Springfield Staff: Sandy Belson, Comprehensive Planning Manager; Haley Campbell, Senior Planner; Kristina Kraaz, Assistant City Attorney; Sarah Weaver, Community Development Administrative Assistant Chair Kashinsky called for a statement of actual or potential conflict of interest from the three jurisdictions: Lane County Planning Commissioners actual or potential conflict of interest: None City of Eugene Planning Commissioners actual or potential conflict of interest: None City of Springfield Planning Commissioners’ roll call for actual or potential conflict of interest: Salazar: stated he had no potential conflict of interest. Bergen: stated that she is a realtor in Springfield and for this reason has a potential conflict of interest. JOINT LANE COUNTY, CITY OF EUGENE & CITY OF SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes Springfield Planning Commission: Approved 06/06/23 Attested by S. Weaver 2 JOINT LANE COUNTY, CITY OF EUGENE & CITY OF SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes Approved 06/06/23 Attest by S. Weaver Buck: stated that he has a potential conflict of interest since he is an insurance broker with business in the area. Schmunk: stated he had no potential conflict of interest. Thompson: stated he had no potential conflict of interest. Stout: stated he had no potential conflict of interest. Rhoads-Dey: stated he had a potential conflict of interest since he works as a realtor in the area. WORK SESSION ITEM 1) Ordinance No. PA 1389/ in the matter of amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Plan (Metro Plan) to allow for wastewater services to be extended to the rural unincorporated community of Goshen and for transport of Leachate for Lane County’s Short Mountain Landfill. Lane County: Jared Bauder, Dan Hurley, and Rob Woodard Eugene: Elena Domingo / Springfield: Haley Campbell 60 minutes Lane County staff gave a presentation on Ordinance No. PA 1389/ In the matter of amending the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area Plan (Metro Plan) to allow for wastewater service to be extended to the rural unincorporated community of Goshen and for transport of Leachate for Lane County’s Short Mountain Landfill (see PowerPoint presentation). City of Eugene staff did not add comment on the proposed ordinance. City of Springfield staff made a brief comment on the proposed ordinance: Since this is a Type 3 Metro Plan Amendment it requires co-adoption by the City of Springfield and City of Eugene. The Springfield findings point out that the area is outside Springfield’s UGB, therefore the Springfield Comprehensive Plan is not applicable. Springfield staff have found some gaps in Lane County’s findings under Springfield’s Development Code 5.14.135A regarding Statewide Planning Goals 11 and 14. For questions about this, please refer to Springfield’s staff report or ask questions during the Q & A. Commissioner Wihtol, Lane County: CW: Has there been a traffic or infrastructure analysis about the impact of adding 2,000 to 3,000 jobs to the Goshen area? One of the State-wide goals is to have a sensible transportation system. Lane County Staff: is unaware of such a study and will investigate the matter and report back to the Commissioners. 3 JOINT LANE COUNTY, CITY OF EUGENE & CITY OF SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes Approved 06/06/23 Attest by S. Weaver CW: Has there been a new or updated statement of economic necessity for this project? The GREAT Plan of 2011 was developed in a very different economic climate. Has there been a review of the need for expanding the job market? Lane County Staff: is not aware of the GREAT Plan being updated or a review of need for an increase in jobs. CW: Are there any further details of what kind of development would take place in the Goshen area? Lane County Staff: confirmed that they would not be guiding any development. Development would be based on private developers. Lane County does not control the properties but provides the opportunity for investment. CW: Given that Lane Community College has problems with their wastewater, why wouldn’t they automatically be included in this project? Lane County Staff: if the amendment is adopted, they would like to bring inclusion of other entities forward for consideration using a similar process. For the four other interested parties to participate, they would need to request an exemption and that would potentially take a year. After the decision has been made in the Fall, Lane County staff will update the Commissioners about this. Commissioner Rhoads-Dey, Springfield: IRD: The statement on State-wide Planning Goal 10 for Housing states action of this Ordinance would not impact the Eugene / Springfield demand for residential land. The amendment states that it would generate 2,000 to 3,000 new jobs to the metro area. Why does the staff report not include a review of the impact on the housing demand in the Metro area? Lane County Staff: looked very narrowly at what they were proposing, which was an amendment to the Metro Plan to include the landfill and the Goshen area to allow for the extension of wastewater. It is certainly the County’s hope that the area will be built out, but this amendment’s language only addresses the landfill and laying the pipes, which would not impact housing. Commissioner Hadley, Lane County: BH: had a question about the proposed amendments section C & D, which have a qualifier at the end of each sentence, whereas the amendment section A for the Eugene Airport does not. Why doesn’t the amendment’s section C just state Lane County Short Mountain Landfill and section D say the Rural Unincorporated Area of Goshen. Why are limits being placed on these proposed areas. Lane County Staff: The reason that the qualifiers are include is based on the OAR which allows only for wastewater to be transported from a rural land outside of the UGB to the wastewater system inside the UGB. Therefore, the Short Mountain Landfill has a qualifier to maintain compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules. Goshen has its own water system and only requires wastewater to be included in the MWMC system. BH: Why should it be limited to the transport of wastewater and not water as well? 4 JOINT LANE COUNTY, CITY OF EUGENE & CITY OF SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes Approved 06/06/23 Attest by S. Weaver Lane County Staff: The OAR only speaks to the wastewater and Goshen already has its own water system. Commissioner Bergen, Springfield: GB: There is a map that indicates that the wastewater would connect through the Springfield system. Will there be a surcharge for the use of Springfield wastewater transfer system? In future, if the capacity was exceeded or the line failed, who would be shouldering the costs? Lane County Staff: A service charge would be part of the buy-in of joining the MWMC wastewater system and the capacity of pipe that would be used. Currently, the system has the capacity to include the level of wastewater proposed. There would be a System Development Charge as a part of the buy-in and a formal financial arrangement would be brought before the commissioners and councils in the Fall. If there are repairs required in the system, all users would be paying through their wastewater bills. Lane County would be responsible for the new line, but they would either need to engage new staff to maintain it or contract the maintenance out through a contractual arrangement. MWMC Staff: The details of who is doing the maintenance and who will essentially own it have not been worked out yet. That is forthcoming in the County’s future findings. Springfield Staff: The line currently belongs to the City of Springfield and is not a MWMC line. If this becomes a regional line, then MWMC may need to buy it. Commissioner Ramey, Eugene: CR: Has there been an analysis within the UGBs that shows that there is a shortage of these type of lands? How does this land type compare with the existing lands in the UGBs? Secondly, three options were considered 1. The line, 2. A pond, and what was the third? Why was the decision made for the line and not the other options? Finally, we speak to the unincorporated area of Goshen. Is there a line drawn around Goshen as an urban growth boundary or could the service be extended beyond it? Can one restrict the usage based on gallons? Lane County Staff: This would give the Goshen residents access to the line. In 2010 it is believed that Goshen had 1,000 – 1,500 thousand residents. Staff will find out more and get back to the commissioners. Commissioner Beeson, Eugene: KB: wanted to know where the DLCD lands in the approval process for this project. He commented that the proposal appears to be a twofold – A. To connect to Short Mountain Landfill and B. to provide wastewater service to the unincorporated area of Goshen. 5 JOINT LANE COUNTY, CITY OF EUGENE & CITY OF SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes Approved 06/06/23 Attest by S. Weaver Lane County Staff: stated that they are required by State law to give notification to the DLCD 35 days in advance of the first evidentiary hearing. The three Planning Commissions hold a Joint Hearing, then each of the Planning Commissions hold their own deliberations. The Planning Commissions make their recommendations to their City Councils/ County Commission, at which point the Councils and Commission hold their own hearings and make their final decision. After the three bodies have made their decisions, the appeal period opens and the DLCD is given the notification. The DLCD publishes the decision and hypothetically the DLCD could appeal the decision. Commissioner Wihtol, Lane County: CW: Addressed his question to City of Eugene, City of Springfield, and Lane County staff. The report submitted in the findings indicates that there is a shortage of industrial land in Eugene and Springfield, which makes this project that much more necessary. Don’t the City of Eugene and Springfield have their own comprehensive land use processes that are supposed to ensure that there is adequate industrial land for future development? Why is it necessary to develop Goshen when both cities should already have planned for it? Eugene Staff: Eugene added the Clearlake industrial area in 2017 after the report the Commissioner is referencing was drafted. Springfield Staff: Springfield added to the Urban Growth Boundary for employment land in 2016, which was acknowledged in 2019. This was also after the report referenced in the findings. The type of industrial land available in Goshen is different than what was added in the Springfield expansion. Staff have established that the City has enough industrial land for expansion in the next 20 years. Lane County Staff: acknowledged that the cities of Eugene and Springfield have adequate land for their industrial growth. The Goshen project is addressing the future of regional needs and not explicitly those of the cities of Eugene / Springfield. Adjourned: by the Lane County, City of Eugene, and City Springfield Planning Commission Chairs – 7:01 pm. Tuesday, April 4th, 2023 In person at the Goodpasture Room, Lane County, & Jesse Maine Room, Springfield City Hall & via Zoom 7:00 pm Joint Public Hearing 1 – Welcome / Introduction to Topic Lane County Chair Kashinsky provided a brief overview of the joint public hearing. LCOG and Lane County staff gave a presentation on Ordinance No. PA 1389/ In the matter of amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Plan (Metro Plan) to allow for wastewater service to be extended to the rural unincorporated community of Goshen and for transport of Leachate for Lane County’s Short Mountain Landfill (see PowerPoint presentation). 6 JOINT LANE COUNTY, CITY OF EUGENE & CITY OF SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes Approved 06/06/23 Attest by S. Weaver 2 – Open the hearing Chairs Kashinsky, Isaacson, and Salazar each cited the applicable approval criteria and then opened the public hearing for the Lane County, Eugene, and Springfield Planning Commissions. 3 – Testimony from interested parties Mark Rust: 1616 Kellogg Rd, Springfield, OR 97477: emphasized that he is submitting this public comment as a private individual and not as representative of any of the three jurisdictions. As a former Lane County employee and primary author of Lane County’s GREAT Plan, he is taking this opportunity to submit public comment in favor of the project. He requested that the approximately 100-page findings for the Lane County Great Plan be entered into the record. These findings could answer some of the questions that were asked during this meeting. With regard to one of the questions asked about a traffic impact analysis: there are multiple pages of findings in the Lane County GREAT Plan’s ca. 100-page document, which address this issue. Another question raised concerned whether a sewer line will be extended to the unincorporated community of Goshen. Whether Goshen is included in the sewer service would not allow or disallow urban levels of development. It may make it easier, but it will not change the fact that urban development in Goshen is moving forward. There are potentially multiple other options to provide increased levels of sewer service to the unincorporated community of Goshen without all three jurisdictions being involved. It is critically important to provide a sewer line to the landfill. It has been needed for over a decade. The truck traffic created by transporting the Leachate shouldn’t be happening now. There was a question whether the unincorporated community of Goshen has a quasi-urban growth boundary. One of the maps in the packet show a “bright-line" boundary around the unincorporated community of Goshen. In Lane County’s GREAT Plan there is a well-defined list of all parcels that were included and not included in that area. One of the primary reasons why the industrial land Goshen is different from the industrial land Eugene / Springfield is that there are rail and rail-served sites there. When you look at the land added to the Eugene / Springfield area since that time, none of that land is rail-served. If you look at the adopted heavy and light zoning code sections for the Land Goshen, it is very specific about the uses being heavy industrial rail-served or, on the other side of the HWY 99, alternatively rail supported uses. The presence of the rail was key to the designation of Goshen as a regionally significant area. 4 – Clarifying questions from Commissioner(s) Commissioner Lear, Eugene: 7 JOINT LANE COUNTY, CITY OF EUGENE & CITY OF SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes Approved 06/06/23 Attest by S. Weaver JL: According to the State, only the leachate disposal will be served. Does this mean their office that will remain on a septic system out at that landfill? Lane County Staff: There is a crew room for the staff out at the landfill. There are about 10 employees that work there. They are still serviced by a septic system, which is not connected to the leachate line at this time. JL: Could their office join the line? Lane County Staff: There is a very specific OAR that mandates only Leachate to be transported by the line. Commissioner Stout, Springfield: AS: How many gallons/ truckloads of leachate are currently being transported per day/ per year to the landfill? Lane County Staff: The leachate generation varies by how wet the year is. There is approximately 20 – 25 million gallons transported to the landfill a year. There is a lot of seasonality with the trucking numbers as well. During the summer, a day or two can sometimes be skipped. On average in the summer 7 or 8 trucks are transported daily. In the wintertime transportation of leachate spikes. Especially when there is a wet event, there can be 3 trucks running 24 hours a day. On average during the winter there are about 15 trucks running a day. Each truck transport travels 6.25 miles each run. It is preferred not to have leachate trucks on the road to prevent potential accidents. To date, there has never been an accident with any of the transports. 5 – Close the Hearing Lane County Chair Kashinsky declared the Joint Public Hearing closed and announced that the public record will remain open for written testimony. Written testimony received before April 11th, 2023 at 5:00 pm well be forwarded to and considered by the Lane County, Eugene, and Springfield Planning Commissions. Written testimony received after that date will be forwarded to the Lane County Board of Commissioners and to the Eugene and Springfield City Councils for their consideration. Eugene and Springfield Planning Commission chairs each closed their respective public hearings stating the record would remain open as explained by Commissioner Kashinsky. Adjourned by the Lane County, City of Eugene, and City Springfield Planning Commission Chairs – 7:22 PM.