HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/23/2012 Work Session. MINUTES OF THE
JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL,
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL,
AND LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 235 2012
A joint elected officials meeting with the City of Springfield, City of Eugene, and Lane County was
held in the Springfield Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Thursday,
February 23, 2012 at 12:OOpm with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Mayor Lundberg welcomed everyone to Springfield City Hall and opened the meeting of the
r
Springfield City Council.
Mayor Piercy opened the meeting of_the Eugene City Council.
Commissioner Leiken opened the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Present from Springfield were Mayor Christine Lundberg and Councilors Moore, Ralston, Woodrow,
and Pishioneri. Councilors Wylie and VanGordon were absent (excused). Springfield City Manager
Gino Grimaldi and. other Springfield staff were also present.
Present from Eugene were Mayor Kitty Piercy and Councilors Ortiz, Clark, Poling, Brown, Taylor,
Farr, Zelenka, and Pryor. Eugene City Manager Jon Ruiz and other Eugene staff were also present.
Present from Lane County were Board Chair Leiken and Commissioners Bozievich, Handy, and
Sorenson. Commissioner Stewart was absent (excused). Lane County Administrator Liane Richardson
and other Lane County staff were also present.
I. Adjustments to A e e� nda
There were no adjustments to the agenda.
II. Lane Communitv College Conceptual Master Plan.
Tony McCown, Lane Community College (LCC) Board member introduced this item. He said they
were here to talk about LCC's future for the 21 Sc century at the Russell Creek Basin location and the
process developed over the last couple of years to develop a master plan for all of LCC's properties.
Mr. McCown noted that there were three initiatives. The first initiative was the long -range master plan
for the main campus. The goals of the initiative were to increase the availability of educational
opportunities to a wide spectrum of people, to .produce new income streams to offset the reduction of
state funds for operating expenses, to explore private /public partnerships to provide on the job work
experience for students to offer traditional and non - traditional settings for educating students, and to
provide living and learning opportunities for staff and students. Many of the goals were embodied in
the downtown campus. There were many opportunities to work with their partners to provide an
economic impetus. He noted the economic growth in downtown following LCC's announcement to
open their downtown campus.
February 23, 2012
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield
City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 2 of 8
Mr. McCown introduced Mark Gillem and Barry Gordon from the University of Oregon. They had
worked with LCC through a number of workshops with campus staff and students to develop
alternatives for what LCC could do, what the facilities could look like, how they could use their
properties, and how they could partner with those around them to increase their capabilities.
Mr. McCown said the second initiative was to look at the Russell Creek basin. They looked at how it
could develop and who the property owners were. They intended to initiate conversations with
surrounding property owners about participating in the vision of a long -term plan. The third initiative
was connecting with the larger community. LCC represented the entire county and had partnerships in
both small and large cities they would like to undertake.
Mr. Gillem presented a power. point. He said he taught at the University of Oregon, and. ran the Urban
Design Lab. Their lab provided pro bono design services at cost to public agencies around the state.
One of the projects they had been fortunate to work on was the Lane Community College Master Plan.
This project was similar to the Sustainable City Initiative project, but rather than looking at an entire
city, they looked at individual projects and brought students into those projects.
Mr. Gillem said they looked at.where LCC could go in the future regarding their property. It provided
opportunities to look at how to improve the job base and housing base in an environmentally sensitive
manner. Sustainability included social sustainability, cultural sustainability, and economic
sustainability. When LCC first started, sustainability was not considered. It was partly a result of how
different property decisions were made and politics, resulting in a location between jurisdictions with
the only access by vehicle. There was now some transit, but it mainly operated during the typical
working day and was primarily a. learning campus. The community wanted LCC to be a learning
campus, but also a living campus, a place that had 24/7 activity. They had been working towards a
planning vision and looking at where LCC would like to go in terms of community and sustainability,
but this could also be an economic development opportunity for the entire region. The idea of creating
a sustainable financial base for the college was also very important.
Mr. Gillem said the Lane Community College Master Plan vision was "To create a campus that has
appropriate infrastructure that fosters educational excellence through sustainable building and
landscape practices organized around equitable accessibility contributing to a complete community ".
LCC was doing a great job during this process looking at durable buildings within an area that was
accessible to everyone. He referred to some drawings from his students that.portrayed some of the
vision for LCC. In the vision, they were looking at opportunities not only for education, but also
housing. LCC was exploring housing in their downtown project and also looking at this opportunity at
their main campus. Housing could be for students, faculty and staff who were interested in- living
much closer to the college. Another part of the vision included market places, fitness and recreation
centers, dining, and places to play.
Mr. Gillem said the downtown campus was now under construction and it already incorporated many
of the opportunities in the vision. It included housing, market area, fitness, food, play and education in
an integrated setting. That opportunity also presented itself at the main campus.
Mr. Gillem spoke regarding what LCC already had. At this time, they had some very nice classroom
buildings, many that were energy efficient. Most of the classrooms were surrounded by parking
February 23, 2012
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield
City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 3 of 8
because it was situated where most people going there had to drive. He asked Mr. Gordon to explain
the process they were going through for their Master Plan.
Mr. Gordon said there were three stages of planning: vision planning; jurisdictional planning; and
implementation. So far, they had just gotten through the first stage of planning. Participation included
27 workshops and 15 reviews over the last two and a half years. Phase 1 included a visioning
workshop at LCC with open houses for the community. One open house had an attendance of over 500
people. Phase 2 included the conceptual vision documentation process. where they held meetings to
socialize the idea with community members. There were hundreds of LCC faculty, staff and students
involved in the events, as well as many community members. They also met with many community
officials. There were three design studios: two architecture and landscape architecture studios; and a
third architecture and planning studio. Over 40 University of Oregon students participated in those
studios. A survey was sent out to over 14,000 faculty staff and students at LCC with a response of just
over 10% (1454). One of the questions on the survey was "Would you consider living on or near
campus ? ". Forty-seven percent of faculty, forty-two percent of staff, and sixty -one percent of students
said they would.be willing to live on or near campus. The result of this survey caused them to look at
how they could plan for housing needs.
Mr. Gordon said LCC was. located outside Eugene and Springfield urban growth boundaries (UGB),
and inside the Metro Plan boundary. He noted 5 parcels owned by LCC that were depicted on a map in
the power point. He described each parcel. He also noted the land surrounding LCC and who owned
those parcels. With the unique location of the properties, they were looking at regional connections
with a path. He referred to the overall illustrative in the power point. Some students had stayed on as
interns to continue to work through this process.
Mr. Gillem spoke regarding the overall illustrative, which illustrated one way the campus could grow
to achieve its longer term vision. As Eugene and Springfield both looked at what to do about urban
growth boundaries, this was one opportunity. Currently, this was one area that had a lot of jobs, but
not housing. They needed to try to find a way to find that balance. They had thought about this in
districts, each with an area development plan (ADP).
Mr. Gillem referred to a picture of a campus core in the power point. The basic idea with this drawing
was to look at an infill strategy, using utility infrastructure already in place and developing around the
perimeter with potential student housing in a mixed -use format, with additional campus buildings. It
would be more like an actual campus with quads and buildings adjacent to those quads creating
definable and usable. open spaces. There would still be a need for parking, so that would still be part
of the plan. On the north side ADP, they looked at possible development of residential for staff or
faculty, taking advantage of the prime wetlands. This was how both historic Springfield and Eugene
were built by creating a framework that allowed for flexible growth. There would be a dedicated open
space that would connect to the wetland areas. He noted the regulating plan, which was a code that
sustainably regulated an effective environmental form. He explained. He referred to a drawing of the
front yard ADP which would serve as a recreation space for LCC and the larger community. The
eastside ADP included land not currently owned by LCC. They had been talking with the adjacent
partners about how they could be part of this process, with the campus extending into these sites. The
south east ADP included the forest area and would be minimally developed. It offered outdoor
classroom potential.
February 23, 2012
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield
City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 4 of 8
Mr. Gillem said the plan envisioned anywhere from 3,031,243 to 4,600,492 square feet of buildings,
and a minimum of 168 housing units. This was a flexible master plan looking out about 30 -40 years.
Some of the benefits could include 3,414,400 vehicles miles saved per year by having approximately
2,134 people living near campus. That translated to about 3,755,840 pounds of carbon. The average
green Leeds certified building saved about 100,000 pounds of carbon a year, but reducing vehicle
miles travelled reduced carbons at a higher rate. It was important to build green buildings in the
context of an economically, environmentally sustainable plan. There was a per person savings of
$203.20 which was calculated assuming that those living near campus were walking rather than
driving to work or school. They were still early in the process and were looking at continued outreach
and the jurisdictional planning that needed to occur.
Mr. Ruiz asked how many acres there were in the developed portion of the southeast area.
Mr. Gillem said it was about 10 acres.
Eugene Mayor Piercy asked about the mix of housing.
Mr. Gillem said the mix of housing would include small bungalows, townhouses, and living/learning
facilities with classrooms below and dormitories above. They would be looking at affordable models.
There was currently a plan to develop an adjacent area with larger homes, but that was not the intent of
this plan.
Eugene Councilor Taylor asked if those living in the housing .would still have cars.
Mr. Gillem said they would still have cars, but people that lived in communities with a density of
about 20 acres and served by transit drove 50 percent less. This type of planning would allow people
the choice of when and how much they drove.
Eugene Councilor Taylor said they would still need as much or more parking.
Mr. Gillem noted there were still a large number of parking spaces.
Eugene Councilor Taylor asked who would provide the utilities.
Mr. Gillem said that was currently done on site, but they were looking at a long -term sustainable
utility system. If they looked at a model that required sewer lines from Springfield or Eugene, there
could be political barriers. There were many new models of taking care of sewer onsite. They had been
looking at options to be net zero for water. The only thing they may need to bring in would be
electricity and that was already serviced within the electrical grid, so would not be an issue.
Lane County Commissioner Sorenson asked if part of the plan considered the affect of this
development on the surrounding properties. While serving on the LCC Board in the past, the
relationship between LCC and Lane Transit District (LTD) to reduce the number.of car trips had
served them well. He was impressed with the plan, but wanted to know, if part of the analysis included
the affect on surrounding areas.
February 23, 2012
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield
City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 5 of 8
Mr. Gillem said it was a ripple effect. The first ring included people living right around the campus
and it had been very important to reach out to those residents. They were very happy with the idea of
medium density housing and were in support. The second ring was more public and they had been
working with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) regarding the future interchange
expansion. Currently, ODOT did not have the funding for that expansion, but the plan accounted for
the fact that at some point that expansion could occur. The third ring included Glenwood, Springfield
and Eugene and how this development could help to accommodate some of the growth for the region.
People wanted to move to this area and housing choices needed to be provided. This could be a
positive impact on the local economy. They would continue to reach out to the different groups and
appreciated hearing any ideas of others they should contact.
Eugene Councilor Brown asked if the housing would only be for LCC staff or students.
Mr. Gillem said to make it marketable, they would be open to anyone. There would be specific student
housing, but other types of housing could be open to others. More housing was needed in the region,
but there was the issue of the UGB. Currently LCC could build a large part of their campus without a
change to the UGB because it supported the academic mission of LCC. If they wanted to.build
housing for outside use, they couldn't do it because of the location of the UGB. They were served by
the Metro Plan boundary, which accommodated LCC. There would be challenges.
Eugene Councilor Brown asked about high rises on the north parcel. They could fit into the
neighborhood.
Mr. Gillem said students had modeled bigger and taller buildings in that location, but it was not
received by participants. They looked at a multi -way boulevard similar to that being considered for
Franklin Boulevard. They could accommodate a lot of growth in the type of development that was
well received.
Eugene Councilor Brown asked about outdoor instructional areas in the southern parcel.
Mr. Gillem said they had biology and ecology classes that currently went out and hiked through that
area looking for plant materials, wetlands and preservation issues. Not everyone wanted to see
development, but the idea that LCC had a vision gave them direction.
Eugene Councilor Zelenka asked what the enrollment was at LCC.
Mr. McCown said there were about 14,000. That figure would stay about the same over the next five
years. The numbers had increased over the. last few years due to people attending school while out of
work during this economy. They were projecting a 1 percent increase in the next year.
Eugene Councilor Zelenka asked about the capacity.
Mr. McCown said all of the space was being used. Classes were still traditionally during day hours
between 10am -3pm. They had grown in enrollment with program additions.
Mr. Gillem said some of the ideas for the buildings could be facilities such as health care and dining,
where students could get training. The target of number of students had: been about 15,000.
February 23, 2012
Joint Elected Officials_ Meeting
City of Springfield
City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 6of8
Lane County Commissioner Leiken noted that Mr. McCown, who was an LCC Board Member was
also a Lane County Planning Commissioner and understood Metro Plan boundaries which was a
benefit. LCC was in the Metro Plan Boundary, but not within the UGB, which was a challenge. They
would need to look at the possibility of being taken into one city's UGB or ask to have the Metro Plan
boundary moved to the UGB. In their current situation, they would be challenged in regards to their
development. That was part of the long -range vision they needed to consider.
McCown said this was a 30 -40 year plan. If LCC initiated this it would look different. A good portion
of this proposed development was within the core where they had development rights.
Mr. Gillem said the next. phase was jurisdictional planning.
Lane County Commissioner Handy asked Mr. Ruiz if this was part of Eugene's vision for housing or
land, or if it was a separate process._
Mr. Ruiz said that basin had been part of their UGB discussion, although they hadn't narrowed down
areas of expansion if that was what they chose. They hadn't talked about LCC specifically, but the
basin had been part of their conversation regarding lands for industrial or housing.
Springfield Councilor Moore asked about the McVay Highway transportation planning with LTD that
was occurring in relationship to LCC. She felt it would make sense to look at the potential for that
connection from McVay to. LCC for bike lanes and transit. She asked about the distance.
Springfield Transportation Manager Tom Boyatt said it was about 2 1/2 miles
Mr. Gillem said the main campus would remain the main campus. He noted that LCC had not updated
their Master Plan since 1965. They hoped this new plan would provide a campus for both learning and
living, that was appropriate for both Springfield and Eugene.
County Commissioner Bozievich said one of the concerns of LTD about the EmX corridor study to
LCC was that it was only a Monday through Friday, 9 -5 demand load. This plan could provide the
24/7 demand and would actually make more sense for EmX. The need for housing on campus was
great, as well as other services. Having a hotel close by could assist with the culinary arts program and
hospitality program. He, too, had once served on the LCC Board and was happy to see them moving
ahead with the vision.
Power point handouts were distributed to the elected officials.
Mayor- Lundberg thanked the presenters for the information and presentation
III. Metro Planning Update.
Lane County Planner Kent Howe, Eugene Planning Director Lisa Gardner, and Springfield Planning
Supervisor Linda Pauly were present for this item. Eugene and Springfield had been working
extensively to implement HB3337, legislation that required two separate UGBs. Both cities had
presented to their respective city councils and planning commissions on their progress, as well as to
February 23, 2012
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield
City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 7 of 8
their neighboring jurisdiction and Lane County. In addition, Lane County had been working through
regional issues that were of importance to the county. It was extremely hard to project when these
respective projects would be complete, adopted and acknowledged since the initiatives were staggered
in their timing. Consequently, it was difficult to anticipate what a revised Metro Plan or regional
planning framework would look like and when it would be developed/finalized. The jurisdictions had
purposefully refrained from addressing any inconsistencies (often called housekeeping amendments)
in the Metro Plan or refinement plans such as the Public Facilities and Services Plan until these
aforementioned projects were complete. Regional framework/revised Metro Plan and housekeeping
amendments would be completed at the same time and post - completion of Envision Eugene,
Springfield 2030 and Lane County regional issues so that they could be done once rather than a more
resource - intensive multiple times. Jurisdiction - specific information provided below:
Springfield 2030: Springfield was currently gathering more information about the UGB
expansion areas reviewed and recommended by the Springfield and Lane County planning
commissions before scheduling with the Council and Board. Springfield was also reviewing
proposed code language that would implement new policies of Springfield 2030 for compliance
with statutory requirements for clear and object standards. Springfield was preparing an
amendment to Metro Plan Chapter IV clarifying and re- describing the classification of Metro Plan
amendments; which of the governing bodies participated; and a new conflict resolution process. It
was our position that this project addressed the conflict resolution process difficulties raised by
Lane County several years ago; was responsive to the new requirements of ORS 197.304
(HB3337) regarding separate UGBs; and completed some housekeeping matters involving the
triggers or metrics of regional impact. Staff would like to get these amendments to the joint
elected officials before the Springfield UGB expansion was considered so that the purpose of ORS
197.304 was observed consistently throughout the establishment and adoption of Springfield's
UGB.
Envision Eugene: Eugene continued to refine land need numbers for industrial, commercial, and
residential land, in preparation for a UGB proposal to be presented by the City Manager to the
City Council in March. Six community forums were in the planning stages for March and April,
and Council would hold a public hearing in April as well. In May, the Council would have the
opportunity to act on the recommended UGB, along with implementation strategies. The formal
adoption process would begin following detailed capacity analysis and potential master planning
of UGB expansion areas.
Lane County: In addition to working with the City of Springfield on the Springfield UGB
expansion areas and the Metro Plan Chapter IV amendments, Lane County was processing a
Metro Plan amendment to make the Metro Plan Boundary co- terminus with the Metro UGB. Since
Springfield had already adopted a parcel specific UGB, Lane County was approaching this work
in two phases. The first phase was on the Springfield- side of I -5. Phase two would come later
when Eugene was further along in its process. Currently, a Joint Elected Officials Public Hearing
was scheduled for March 13 to address this County- initiated Metro Plan amendment that would
reduce the total land area within the Metro Plan East of I -5 and adopt a new Metro Plan Boundary
that was co- terminus with the City of Springfield's parcel specific UGB. On Oct. 25, 2011, the
Joint Eugene /Springfield/Lane County Planning Commissions deliberated and made their
respective recommendations.
February 23, 2012
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield
City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 8 of 8
County Commissioner Handy referred to Springfield 2030 as noted in the memo, and Springfield's
plan to amend the Metro Plan Chapter 4. He asked what Springfield was looking at changing.
Springfield City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith said for the past few months, Springfield had been
working with Lane County and Eugene staff. Chapter 4 of the Metro Plan was the part that talked
about plan amendments. They were looking to make Chapter 4 consistent with House Bill 3337 which
related to each city establishing their own UGB and inventories. They had suggestions about
reclassifying how a Metro Plan amendment was described, and how many governing bodies needed to
approve those amendments. The language was just being finalized. They planned to present that
language to the stakeholders and then come to the elected officials
Mayor Lundberg adjourned the Springfield City Council at 12:52pm.
Mayor Piercy adjourned the Eugene City Council at 12:52pm.
Commissioner Leiken adjourned the Lane County Commissioners at 12:52pm.
Minutes Recorder
Amy Sowa
City Recorder
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest: