HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 01 Joint Work Session with the Planning Commission to Discuss Issues Related to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan)
May 14,2007
Joint Work Session
Development Services
Bill Grile and ~
Greg Mo~
S P R I N G FIE L D Staff Phone No: 726-3619 and 726-3774
C I T Y C 0 U N C I L Estimated Time: 60 Minutes
ITEM TITLE: JOINT WORK SESSION WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DISCUSS
ISSUES RELATED TO THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN
AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN)
Meeting Date:
Meeting Type:
Department:
Staff Contact:
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ACTION
REQUESTED:
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
Engage in a discussion about the Metro Plan and the extent to which it is meeting or
not meeting Springfield's needs and expectations.
The Metro Plan is nearly as old as Oregon's Statewide Planning Program, which is
currently undergoing a comprehensive review called, "The Big Look." There is
. value in doing a similar review of The Metro Plan. This joint work session
provides the Council and Planning Commission an opportunity to discuss thoughts
and concerns about The Metro Plan and the extent to which it is meeting or not
meeting Springfield's needs and expectations.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: "The Little Look" - Process document
Attachment 2: Metro Plan Fundamental Principles
Attachment 3: Lane County's Metro Plan Issues
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Roster
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMP ACT:
The Lane County Commissioners and Mayors/Councilors from Springfield and
Eugene are engaged in a series of meetings to discuss Oregon's Statewide Planning
Program and The Metro Plan. These local meetings are being called, "The Little
Look." Attachment 1 provides background about "The Little Look" process and
substantive questions being used by a facilitator to guide the discussions. In
particular, Questions 7, 8 and 9 relate directly to the Metro Plan:
7. Are the fundamental principals of the Metro Plan still relevant for
decision-making today? [See Attachment 2]
8. How well does the Metro Plan partnership system meet the needs of
citizens, elected officials and the region today?
9. Is the Metro Plan meeting current and future needs related to buildable
lands and UGBs, service districts and service delivery, transportation, housing,
Measure 37 claims, other?
Lane County has expressed eleven Metro Plan issues it feels merit examination.
These are available for review at Attachment 3.
The City Council and Planning Commission meet at least once annually to discuss
issues of mutual concern. The May 14th Joint Work Session provides an
opportunity for the Council and Planning Commission to discuss issues related to
the Metro Plan and specifically, the extent to which the Plan is or is not meeting
Springfield's needs and expectations. Questions 7, 8 and 9 (above) and Lane
County's eleven issues can be used as a framework for the discussion, if this is
helpful.
The Little Look
Lane County/Springfield/Eugene Metro Plan
Presentation to SEL
April 27,Mav 2 2007
As follow up to the December 15,2006 meeting with the City Managers and County
. Administrator, the City & County staff prepared the following updated document.
Purpose
The purpose of the survey is to study and make recommendations on:
a. The effectiveness of Oregon's land use planning program in meeting
current and future needs of Oregonians in all parts of the state and
. effectiveness of the Metro Plan in meeting current and future needs of
Eugene, Springfield and Lane County;
b. The respective roles and responsibilities of state and local governments
in land use planning; and
c. Land use issues specific to areas inside and outside Metro Plan and
urban growth boundaries and the interface between areas inside and
outside urban growth boundaries.
ATTACHMENT
1-1
Lane County, Springfield, Eugene Metro Plan 'Little
Look'
Tentative Milestones
April/May 2007
Survey the County and City elected officials in 3 facilitated .
focus groups
May/June
Joint staff (Development and Planning Directors) review-
commonalities or themes? Issues that need to be addressed?
Potential next steps?
Joint staff recommendation to CMOICAO about next steps
,
: Participate (as group?) :
: in SB 82 discussion? :
I_________________________~
Group A
Wednesday, May 9
6:00-8:00 p.m.
Jesse Maine Room
Springfield City Hall
225 Fifth Street, Springfield
r-------------------------.
: JEO mtg.ldiscussion?:
~________________________J
Grou s for "The Little Look"
Group B
Monday, May 7
4:00-5:15 p.m.
Eugene Public Library
100 W. loth Avenue
Sunstone Room (Access is
limited - an escort will
assist ou to the room.
Ki Pierc
Bill Fleenor
Bobb Green
Bonn Bettman
Mike Clark
Ilillarv V/vlig Anne Ballew
John Woodrow
r-------------------------
: Other? :
I I
~________________________J
Group C
Monday, May 14
3:30 p.m.
Meeting Room 3
Lane County Public Works
3040 N. Delta Highway
Eugene
Sid Leiken
Bill D er
Chris P or
Alan Zelenka
Jennifer Solomon
,^.ftnc Balle';, HiIlar W lie
Joe Pishioneri
The facilitator for the sessions will be Betsv Shepard. Betsv is a retired 4J
teacher with extensive experience faciJitatinq qroup discussions with the
community and the school district.
1-2
2
PROPOSED QUESTIONS.
. .
. .
. .
The first 6 questions are the same questions be ing asked as part of the 'Big Look' or
Senate Bill 82 process:
).
1. What are the appropriate roles of state and local governments in land use in Oregon?
2. What is the appropriate role of citizen involvement in land use?
3. . What role should land use planning play in enhancing Oregon's economy now and in
the future?
4. What are the most effective tools to manage population growth to achieve community
goals?
5. How should Oregon's system of infrastructure, finance and governance influence
land use?
6. How can the land use process appropriately address the benefits and burdens that fall
. on individual land owners and the general public?
Reference: http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/BIGLOOK/maior issues.shtml
The last three questions are from a more local perspective:
7. Please explain how the fUl1damental principles of the Metro Plan are still relevant for
decision-making today.
8. How well does the Metro Plan partnership system meet the needs of citizens today?
[
1
2
3
4
(Elected?)
(Region?)
9. Is Metro Plan meeting current & future needs related to:
o Buildable Lands & UGB's
o Service Districts & Service Delivery
o Transportation
o . Housing
o M37 Claims
o Other
3
1-3
Fundamental Principles
There are seveh principles that are fundamental to the entire Metro
Plan. They are implicitly included in the various individual Metro Plan
components. These Fundamental Principles are:..
1. The Metro Plan is a long-range policy document providing the
. framework within which more detailed refinement plans are
prepared. This concept is discussed in more detail in the '.
Introduction (Chapter I).
2. To be meaningful, the Metro Plan requires cooperation by all
general purpose, special district, and special function agencies in
the community. This reflects its comprehensive nature
encompassing physical land use, social, and economic
implications for the metropolitan area. Examples where
cooperation is essential include planning and implementation of a
transportation system, development of a metropolitan-wide energy
plan, metropolitan-wide analysis and resolution of certain housing
issues, and planning for areas outside the urban growth boundary
(UGB) and within the Plan Boundary.
3. The Metro Plan and most of its elements are oriented to and
require that urban development occur in a compact configuration
within the metr~pofitan UGB. Elaboration of this principle is
treated in the other sections of this chapter, and in the Public
Facilities and Services Element in Chapter III.
ATTACHMENT
2-1
4.. Comprehensive plans identify and establish the plan-zoning
consistency concept and recognize the importance of timing
concerning implementation techniques. Implementation'
techniques, including zoning, shall generally be consistent with
The precepts established in the Metro Plan, which is the broad
policy document for the metropolitan area. The consistency test
. shall continuously be applied to implementation measures and
public actions taken to rectify inconsistencies when the general
direction provided by the Metro Plan is modified. A variety of
potential solutions to consistency problems exist, including
modification to the Metro plan or alteration to the implementation
techniques themselves.
5. T,he zoning process shall be monitored and adjusted to meet
current urban land use demands through the planning period for
all land use categories. '
6. The Metro Plan is based on the premise that Eugene and
Springfield, the two existing cities, are the logical providers of
services _accommodating urban levels of development within the
UGB.
7. The Metro Plan was developed to meet the supporting facilities.
and services necessary to serve a population of 286,000 within the
UGB by the year 2015.
2-2
Draft Ust of Metro Issues in Need of ExaminatiOn
Board of County Commissioners
August 2, 2005
1. Plan ArchitecturelStmcture - 1 Metro Plan or Separate Plans?
Should the jurisdictions dissolve the Metro Plan and adopt separate comprehensive plans for the City of
Eugene and Springfield? The Board requested staff develop a matrix of the pros and cons of the Metro Plan.
2. Metro Planlref'mement plan amendment procedures
The Board expressed interest in reviewing the Metro Plan amendment procedures and requested staff to
compile a table of information on the plan amendments processed during the last 5 years. Are there Plan
amendments that are located wholly within Eugene or Springfield City Limits that are regional in character?
If so, should all three jurisdictions, or the initiating city and the county jointly make the decision?
,. ). . .
3. Regional impacts - County/other City roles inside City Limits
The Board is interested in reviewing significant development proposals that have a regional impact, even if
they are located within the City Limits. An example is ODOT's request for $8 million match for I-SlBeltline
improvements. arising out of the agreement with PeaceHealth.
4. Urbanizable Land (inside UGB, outside City Limits) Administration
a. Who does planning and building permits?
The Board is interested in looking at the UIban Transition Agreement that delegated the planning and
building permitting authority to the two cities inside the UGB.
b. Representation of citizens inside UGB, outside City Limits
The Board wants to explore ways to improve how County citizens can be effectively dealt with by the City
elected officials under the UIban Transition Agreement. Are differential fees for applications within and
outside the city for the same permit appropriate? Should land owners between the City Limits and UGB
have a right of appeal to their elected representatives? .'
5. Statutory Coordination Role - LCOG or Lane County?
Currently, the county has to be involved with all 12 cities for amemhnents to comprehensive plans located
between the City Limits and the UGB. Does this result in duplication of service? The Board wants to look at
the coordination role currently being provided by the LCOG and determine if it would be in the city's and
county's interest to return the coordination role to Lane County.
6. Role of MPC - Policy Development and Dispute Resolution
The Board recalls when the role ofMPC was policy development and dispute resolution. However, now when
a dispute resolution comes up, the approach seems to be that each representative goes back to its governing
body to determine a position rather than seek to resolve the dispute at the MPC table. MPC has also been
consumed by the MPO role for transportation issues in the Metro area. The Board wants to look at the
appropriateness ofMPC in that function.
7. Fundamental Principles
a. Compact Urban Growth?
The Metro Plan is approaching 30 years of age. No UGB expansionS are even on the horizon. Whereas,
satellite communities such as Junction City, Creswell, Coburg and Veneta are growing rapidly and all but
Veneta have recently expanded their UGB's. Portions of the MetrQ Area's infrastructure are enduring
stress (roads) and others are expanding (MWMC). Do the compact urban growth policies still work
today?
b. With Measures 5, 47/50, are cities logical providers of urban services?
Recently Eugene, Springfield and Lane County areJearning that property tax revenue growth is not
adequate to maintain current service levels. Are there certain services best provided by a district, be it
special or county service to alleviate the steady erosion in service levels?
ATTACHMENT
3,...1
8. Inventory Development (Responsibility and Methodology)
a. Residential, Commercial and Industrial land
b. Goal 5 Natural Resources
Recently Eugene, Springfield and Lane County have developed separate inventories since they couldn't
agree on significant criteria or who should conduct the inventory. Private parties are using the LCOG
data to produce their own inventories. One of the advantages of the Metro Plan is avoiding duplication on
these sorts of work tasks. Are we getting away from this advantage of the Metro Plan?
9. RTP I TransPlan
'. The effort involved with three jurisdictions having both a regional and a comprehensive transportation plan
for the Metro Area seems duplicative. Can one transportation plan meet both the local and regional needs and
requirements?
10. Effects of Ballot Measure 37
Identify mutual city/county issues ofBM37 claims adjoining the UGB such as the effects new, urban-type
uses may have on the fiscal and social health of the nearby city; the impacts such claims might have on current
metro initiatives/questions regarding adequacy of commerciallindustriaVresidential inventories; the Goal 14
rule-making establishing new UGB amendment procedUres; and the potential domino effect on surrounding
, land and the need for urban service extension.
11. Metro Plan area outside UGB
Should the Metro Plan boundary extend beyond the UGB? If so, the same issue is relevant in reviewing
significant development proposals that have a regional impact, even if they are wholly located in the county
jurisdiction, outside the UGB.
"-<-...~
3-2
". City of Springfield PUBLIC
Planning Commission
MAILING ADDRESS PHONE APPOINTMENT RE- EXPIRATION
DATE APPOINTMENT DATE
DATE
Steve Moe Home: 726-7613 5/01/1999 6/05/2003 6/05/2007
3698 Franklin Boulevard
PO Box 847
Springfield, Oregon 97477
intercitv@aol.com
Bill Carpenter Vice-Chair Home: 726-6286 4/20/1998 . 5/4/2004 5/4/2008
680 T Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
wcarpenter@iqc.orq
Frank Cross Chair Home: 521-2909 5/4/2004 5/4/2008
2580 D Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
westcross@comcast.net
Lee Beyer Home: 746-5889 4/16/2001 10/2/2006. 10/2/2010
951 "S" Street
. Springfield, Oregon 97477
leelbever@comcast.net
Johnny Kirschenmann Home: 726-0798 2/5/2007 .: 2/5/2011
1159 S. 68th Street
Springfield, Oregon 97478 ..-,.,
iohnnvk@rexius.com
Gayle Decker Home: 747-0462 6/02/2003 6/02/2007
415 6th Street
Springfield, Oregon 97478
q i renedecker@comcast.net
David Cole Home: 741-0444 6/02/2003 6/02/2007
PO Box 70142 (mailing add.)
Eugene, Oregon 97401
1336 Modoc St. (residence)
Springfield, Oregon 97477
stoneaqeeq i neer@msn.com
Note: Springfield Planning Commissioners serve four-year terms. Two members may reside outside the
Springfield City limits and two members may be employed in real estate. Representatives to the City
Council are on a rotating basis
CONTACTS: SPRIN~FIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Bill Grile, Development Services Director 726-3671
Greg Mott, Planning Manager, Planning Commission Liaison 726-3774
Brenda Jones, Planning Secretary 726-3610
Edited 2/7/2007 bj
ATTACHMIENT
4-1