Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/10/1993 Work Session (2) " . . . ~ City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE YORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, MAY 10, 1993 The city of Springfield Council met in Work Session in the Springfield City Hall, Meeting Room 2, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, May 10, 1993, at 7:35 p.m., with Mayor Morrisette presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Morrisette, Councilors Shaver, Walters, Burge, Schanz and Maine. Also present were City Manager Michael Kelly, Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Eileen Stein, and members of the staff. CALL TO ORDER 1. State Highway/Road Projects to Request the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to Add in the 1995-2000 State Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Traffic Engineer Scott Morris provided the staff report on this issue. Don Wagner, ODOT Region 3 Manager, has contacted city staff and requested a list of projects to be considered for addition to the state 1995-2000 STIP. He also requested the list be prepared with the following criteria: construction, development or planning. Construction projects are those which are ready to go with no problems (controversial or logistical). Development projects are those which have some problems. These projects will be moved to construction when the problems have been resolved. The planning projects are long-term projects for which the scope has not been fully defined. These projects when defined would move to development and then to construction. The other request was to have the list prioritized. City staff has recommended a list of projects and their priorities and is asking Council to review and approve or amend this list. Staff will then work with staff of other metro area agencies to consolidate and submit to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) for a recommendation to ODOT. Council discussed projects on the list and priorities for inclusion in the 1995-2000 TIP. Councilor Shaver discussed project number 4, Pioneer Parkway east and west intersection with Highway 126. This would involve new surface but mostly transportation circulation improvements. He also discussed project numbers 5, 7 and 8. Councilor Maine did not want project number 2, Eugene-Springfield Highway lighting project, from I-5 to McKenzie Highway, to move any further down on the list. He was concerned for with safety issues in this area. ... . . . '.I Work Session Meeting Minutes May 10, 1993 Page 2 Management Analyst Dick McKinley and Traffic Engineer Scott Morris explained how ODOT classifies projects and why the staff priorities were developed as they appeared in the staff report. Mr. McKinley explained the criteria includes the feasibility of the project. Another consideration is that construction projects are more likely to be funded over planning and development projects. . Council discussed the impacts of moving project number 7 up on the list. They directed staff to move project number 7 up to the third project on the list. Council also directed adding an overpass on Johnson (Sprague Road) on 1-5 as the last project on the list. Councilor Burge exited the meeting at 8:00 p.m. and returned at 8:04 p.m. 2. MPC Conflict Resolution for Metro Plan Amendment Process. Planning Manager Greg Mott presented the staff report on this issue. At their April 22 conflict resolution meeting, MPC recommended changes to the Metro Plan amendment process that attempt to incorporate the Springfield city Council's preference for more autonomous decision making. These changes are a compromise to both the amendment process adopted by Eugene and Lane County and to the recommendations of the Springfield Planning Commission. The significant changes included in the MPC proposal are: (1) Lane County will decide whether or not the "other city" (Eugene for amendments east of I-5, Springfield for amendments west of I-5) is "substantively affected" by the proposal and therefore entitled to participate in the decision; and, (2) an acreage threshold for UGB amendments that determines when all three governing bodies, as opposed to just the city and county, would participate. MPC did not recommend an acreage threshold figure. Subsequent to this MPC meeting, the City Attorney's Office has reviewed the MPC alternative and has determined that Lane County's proposed role in the process is quasi-judicial because the county must exercise discretion in evaluating the city's response to the substantive effect criteria. A quasi-judicial decision is subject to notice, public hearing and appeal (Ref. ORS 197.015(10). In other words, if Eugene or Springfield wanted to participate in an amendment proposal involving land in the other jurisdiction, Lane County would need to hold public hearing to consider the other city's claim of substantive effect. Such a hearing would require legal notice and Lane County's decision would be appealable to LUBA. Staff does not recommend an amendment process that includes an initial hearing to determine jurisdiction. This would protract the process by at least 2 months and, if appealed to LUBA, would cause another 4 month delay. This is not an inconceivable scenario and could add up to 6 months to a process that already takes 4-6 months. However well intentioned, the MPC alternative does not simplify the plan amendment process. If the Council decides that the MPC alternative does not adequately address the issues of autonomy and efficiency, staff recommends that the Council review certain options, select or create their preference, and then request . . . 'J Work Session Meeting Minutes May 10, 1993 Page 3 their MPC representatives to relay their position to MPC on May 13. Council discussed the process and directions for feedback for the upcoming MPC meeting. Councilor Maine indicated the direction to staff at the last MPC meeting was to prepare language reflecting the proposal that was developed and then bring that language back on May 13 to ensure that is what everyone agreed upon. Tonight's meeting is to get Springfield's input on that language. Council discussed the various aspects of the text. Council also discussed various options for negotiating with Eugene and Lane County at the MPC meeting on May 13. By consensus Council chose to select option number 4 to continue to support the Springfield Planning Commission's recommendation with possible modification to develop an acreage agreement (i.e., 10% of inventory base) for opting in when the the urban growth boundary is altered. 3. Periodic Review Time Line. Development Services Director Susan Daluddung presented the staff report. On April 8, 1993, MPC discussed the proposed work program and budget for the up-coming periodic review of the Metro Plan. At the conclusion of this discussion Lane County requested that periodic review be delayed two years to accommodate a difficult budget situation. Staff explained that a one million dollar grant from the state was about to be awarded to L-COG to complete a portion of the TransPlan up-date that is fundamental to periodic review. This grant is being expedited to coincide with the July 1, 1993 notice and would probably be lost if periodic review is delayed. The option of extending the completion date of periodic review was discussed as an alternative to delaying the start. This option does not jeopardize the state grant nor are the other tasks required of periodic review dependent upon a previously established completion date of July, 1995. The cash and staffing commitments to periodic review remain the same whether the project takes two years or three. At the April 22 MPC meeting, Springfield and Eugene MPC members told Lane County that their respective councils wished to commence periodic review as scheduled. Lane County again asked that Springfield and Eugene support a two year delay. Springfield's representatives agreed to take this issue back to their council for reconsideration. Councilor Burge asked if deferring the periodic review for two years would put the grant funding at risk. He also asked if there was any guarantee that ODOT would fund it in two years. Ms. Daluddung replied there were not any guaranties the funding would become available in two years. Councilor Burge asked if we can take the money and only proceed as far as funds would carry us. Ms. Daluddung responded that DLCD will want it completed by a certain time. On the other hand, the city of Portland received an extension and may still be uncompleted after 7 years. Mr. Mott explained a proposal for proceeding with components of the planning process that will be compatible with other planning efforts ... . . . '. Work Session Meeting Minutes May 10, 1993 Page 4 necessary such as the TransPlan. He also discussed the timing of certain planning processes and notice requirements and explained how certain elements would be delayed anyway. Councilor Burge requested that the Council be sensitive to Lane County. By consensus, the Council directed staff to find a way to accommodate Lane County. ADJOURNMENT THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 9:37 P.M. Minutes Recorder - Eileen Stein 84//!~ ATTEST: 4kttWitz:t~ City RecordEtr #:4072