HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 13 Joint Participation with Eugene and Lane County in a Ballot Measure 37 Claim
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: May 7, 2007
Meeting Type: Regular Session
Department: Develop~t.~rvices
Staff Contact: Greg MoU...Q.UA
S P R I N G FIE L D StaffPbone No: 726-3774 JdVl
C I T Y CO UN C I L Estimated Time: 15 Minutes
ITEM TITLE: JOINT PARTICIPATION WITH EUGENE AND LANE COUNTY IN A
BALLOT MEASURE 37 CLAIM.
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Discuss the City's position regarding a Ballot Measure 37 claim filed against the
three governing bodies who havejointly adopted the Metropolitan Area General
Plan (Metro Plan) as the acknowledged land use plan. The site of the claim is west
ofI-5 between the Urban Growth Boundary and the Plan Boundary. Staff
recommends a Council motion declining a role in this matter based on the standards
in the Metro Plan for non-home city participation in comparable Plan amendment
proposals.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
Should the same principles of land use jurisdictional participation apply to Ballot
Measure 37 claims even though such claims are not land use actions?
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Map of properties subject ofBM 37 claim.
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
A Ballot Measure 37 claim has been filed with Eugene, Springfield and Lane
County alleging diminished value as a result of Metro Plan policies. The claim was
filed with each of the Metro Plan's co-signatories despite the property's location
west ofI-5 between the Urban Growth Boundary and Plan boundary. The question
is: "Should the City of Springfield apply the plan amendment procedures regarding
jurisdictional participation in Plan amendments to a BM 37 claim?" The law
establishing claims for diminished value clearly exempts this process from the
"land use decision" and "limited land use decision" process specified in ORS 197.
Notwithstanding this distinction, the BM 37 claim will result in compensation, i.e.
functional equivalent of a development denial, or waiver of the land use regulation,
. i.e. functional equivalent of a development approval. In either case, Springfield's
participation, if this was a land use decision under ORS 197 and the Metro Plan,
would be optional, not compulsory: "All three governing bodies must approve non-
site-specific text amendments; site specific Metro Plan Diagram amendments that
involve a UGB or Plan Boundary change that crosses the Willamette or McKenzie
Rivers or that crosses over a ridge into a new basin; and, amendments that involve a
goal exception not related to a UGB expansion." (Metro Plan, page IV-3).
The claim seeks approval to develop property between the McKenzie River and the
UGB, west ofI-5, with residential development of varying densities. Under Metro
Plan land use procedures, the property owner would request an amendment to the
Urban Growth Boundary and concurrent Plan diagram amendments from
agricultural to residential. Because none of the site-specific guidelines identified at
Metro Plan IV -3 cited above apply to this claim, Springfield would receive a
referral to allow for determination of "Regional Impact" and subsequent decision to
"opt-in" or "opt-out." In previous land use actions west ofI-5 of similar purpose
and scope, the Springfield City Council has declined to participate, consistent with
the provisions of the Metro Plan and the Springfield Development Code, Article 7.
\<~z:\:
'f,'~
I'
.,.. ;\~?;~:I.
':'~$#i!!'
~". '?~:~./
,/'
'.
'~,I{ ~.
.~''an\;lay '~fo.
...'~~v Ln_l " [ , ","i>
,~ Q. ",Of,
" ~ """., '. -< . \,' <I-~~
0/0"- ~.. ~. .
~<~~/ ~ -": - .,Arm_itage
.sarriage Dr : :./ Kinney Lt>.o ~ ..<';\<2::"
tlqlbOlt'~ Cheryt~~gate St (!. ._ ~<~.:.(~
, . ~:t. ~_. _-:;:=. -:::'_. ;;:: =':-:__~I.~..escen~ ^Y~___ .<~;,::::<:".-- \~." ,"',
'loll "..<:~.'.-.:::.;" ."
1:~ Snelling Dr chaJbr Summer Oaks
113 Ii
'i~ ii
Hw i I B ['I' Ii
~:v~~.~p-eN.f;!~~i~~
''-'" ..:.~'~~~~~.
I'
i' E1ysiumAve
.~r'
..TJ
....0
~p=
(l!!:5
rl
iii1J
iU
iiiD
g
liD
0,_
tia
R__
~r,;~~\:~{'t~j
~~~
.,
,
'.
-
:r
o
~
i
..~
. ,.
. . o'~b~jeAve
~7>~'. .
~1.: ,_~. ,.--' ~ et.
'iJ .....~.' ...~...~
~'lft~
~',.
1"W
:',i
(;/'
v'
:!
l~ir,da Dr
'. ~eppescr, Acres Rd
IJl
;jJ,Sally way
::Si -
~l
~ Lanlar Ln
i:
~
III
Q,
S
'"
:,c
r/
;pur.Ave
. ,;MAf'QVE~i.
Slleldon
Pllr~
Vicinity Map
\\.
fS~~=;j'~~r.(,.
....,:\...
"',
.'
,'.
~, "
';- ~
\<:;~"
.......:.
~~,-,~
'.''>''
~.~.>.~....
."...~~~\.
'\'~""
'VI
'lC
.01
.'0
.c:
."
'.."
Q,
~.
GtEt 6
---
,
,
,
!i
!
E Game Farm Rd
.f "
:r
e!. 1;
i>
~
~ltlil!eRd
Colomall
z
~
".
::>
..
l<:' '"
~
~
5:
r-
::>
;a ~
.,;'1>,,__
01
c:
...
Area Subject to Ballot Measure 37 Claim
ATTACHMENT
1-1
8
a
FOR ASSESSMENT
AND TAXATION
ONLY
...t:CTION 9, T.17S. R.3 W.W.M.
. LANE COUNlY
SCM.! ," . 400'
sa Q,A,P 17 03 04
17 03 09
NAD 83/91
5~
-:;r
8 t "'j
I LOT 1 i
2.80 I
HE COR. r.. '.e",J
T.... AUBREY J.'
O.L.c. 39 f.// I
,A I
,
C.\/lCZ1UO
UlIUABl.E:
u _
u ._
u _
. t.- ,_
U ,_
W _
W _
.~.
.........c
.~.
.~.
.~.
.....
.-.
.-.
.-.
...-.
--"I
.-.
2
a
:::
:::
~
~
CIJRVr TAB! r
. u_
o ~w
o u_
,~.
.~
..-.
AD'I,...
.-.
.~
.~.
.~
.~.
.~
.-.
.~
..._r
........
.~.
.~-
O~
-
-
CIt U'-f.....
SEE NAP 17 OJ HI
I
I
f'
~I
~'
~t
I
I
I
I 17 03 09
WNW COR.
G. ARUrrAGE
O.L.c. 4J
ATTACHMENT
2-1
I-
Zz
Wo
2-
V) I-
(/, <C >-
wX-l
U)<CZ
lJi I- 01
<C ~ I
. I
<C .
I
'. ~
I:l
..
" .
0".
ECTION 4, T.17S. R.3 W.W.M.
LANE COUNTY
SCALE ,. - 400'
17 03 04
& INDEX
NA~ 83/91
SEE WV'. 15 03 33
I
I
I
I
SE COR. I I
J. 'IN'lSFIElO i I
~L~ I
,
I
I
100
I1.S6 N;.
C>>oC,LLtll
I 32j~OAC.
I
I
I
"
on
o
...
o
~
...
o
...
o
~
~
I:l
..
S
LQ!. 9
I
I
I
SEE""""7.0309
j
2-2