HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/13/2012 RegularJOINT ELECTED OFFICIALBOARD OF COMMISSIONSER
REGULAR MEETING
March 13, 2012
6:00 p.m.
Commissioner Sid Leiken opened the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners.
City Councilor Dave Ralston opened the meeting of the Springfield City Council
City Councilor George Brown opened the meeting of the Eugene City Council.
Present from Lane County were Board Chair Sid Leiken, Jay Bozievich, Rob Handy and Faye
Stewart. Pete Sorenson was excused.
Present from the city of Springfield were Sheri Moore, Dave Ralston, Sean Van Gordon and Joe
Pishioneri. Christine Lundberg, Hillary Wylie and Marilee Woodrow were excused.
Present from the city of Eugene were George Brown, Pat Farr, Andrea Ortiz and Chris Pryor.
Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor and Kitty Piercy were excused.
WORKSESSION
A. Joint Work Session for the Metro Plan Boundary Amendment for PA 11 -5092 to
include a review of Ordinance Items Nos. PA 1281, PA 1283, PA 1284, PA 1290
& 2 -12.
Kent Howe, Land Management, recalled in 2004 the Eugene Springfield Metro
Plan was just completing the Periodic Review. He reported the Board of
Commissioners identified five issues with the .Metro Plan they had concerns with:
the description of urban services, relating how it affects to special districts; the
urbanizable area citizen representation of the Santa Clara River Road area; the
jurisdictional autonomy with the Metro Plan boundary adjustment; the dispute
resolution process and farmland and open space protection. He indicated that it
took some time to get the cities' interest around those issues. He noted in 2009
the Board of Commissioners and the two city councils started meeting as the Joint
Elected Officials. (JEO) He added that a subcommittee was formed and they
reported back on recommendations in June. He added that the JEO in June
adopted those recommendations, giving staff direction to work on specific
changes to the Metro Plan based on recommendations from each jurisdiction that
include but were not limited to the following: the overarching policies of
identifying and addressing regional issues; policies that allow for individual
Refinement Plans for Eugene and Springfield to address jurisdiction specific
issues; adjustments to the Metro Plan Boundary and text to address jurisdictional
specific issues arising in the urbanizable areas and the area outside of the urban
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
growth boundary. (UGB) He added there was a dispute resolution process that
reflects the changes.
Howe reported that in 2011 the Board of Commissioners initiated the application
before the JEO. He said this Work Session is to provide details regarding the
Lane County initiated Metro Plan Boundary Amendments.
Howe indicated that the three jurisdictions are continuing to work on updating and
amending the Metro Plan to reflect the June 2009 JEO subcommittee
recommendations.. He reported that Eugene and Springfield have been working
extensively to implement H133337, the legislation requiring two separate urban
growth boundaries. He added that Lane County has been, working through
regional issues that are of importance to the County. He noted that Springfield is
gathering more information about the UGB expansion areas reviewed and
recommended by the Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions and
Springfield and Lane County are preparing amendments to the Metro Plan
Chapter 4 clarifying and re- describing the classification of Metro Plan
Amendments. He reported that Eugene is unveiling its results from the Envision
Eugene process in preparation for a UGB proposal this spring. He added that
these are all a part of the June 2009 subcommittee recommendations of which it
states that the jurisdictions shall work on adjustments to the Metro Plan Boundary
and text to address jurisdictional specific issues arising in the urbanizable areas
and the area outside of the UGB. He recalled that this area's first Comp Plan was
the 1990 Plan and it was adopted in 1968.
Howe recalled when the Metro Plan was submitted for acknowledgment in 1980,
many of the concepts and components of the 1990 plan were carried forward. He
added that the UGB had to be justified on the rules and statutes of the Goal 14 .
Inventory Requirements as opposed to the aspirational concepts of the 1990 Plan.
He said because of the historical regional planning and the fact the County had
not submitted a Comprehensive Plan for the rural area, the elected officials
included most of the 1990 plan urban service area extremities within the Metro
Plan, resulting in a plan boundary unique statewide that was exterior to the UGB.
He added that the Metro Plan was acknowledged in 1982. He reported that Lane
County was not acknowledged as meeting the requirements of the statewide
planning program until 1984 and that year the same regulations that protect all of
rural Lane County were applied to the lands outside the Eugene Springfield UGB
inside the Metro Plan. He noted the artifact of the Metro Plan Boundary remains,
that it does not provide any additional regulatory protection. He reported that
there are rural resource lands within the boundaries of the Urban Comprehensive
Plan and the role of the two cities is elevated from interested parties to decision
makers. He explained that this unique plan allows for either city to prevent a land
use action proposed on Rural Resource land outside the city's UGB. He noted
2
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
that now Lane County implements the Statewide Planning Goal Protections to
resource lands outside the UGB, just as the cities of Springfield and Eugene
changed the amendment process in the early 90's to provide the cities with
autonomy with amendments inside city limits and established home city and
county responsibilities for amendments between the city limits and the UGB.
Howe recalled in 2007, HB3337 was passed to provide additional autonomy
requiring Eugene and Springfield to adopt their own separate UGB. He indicated
that the Lane County Board of Commissioners is now interested in achieving a
level of autonomy from the cities for the rural lands outside the cities UGB and
outside the cities' purview of providing urban services. He recalled that the JEO
directed staff to explore these concepts during the implementation of HB 3337
and last year Lane County initiated the proposal in front of the JEO.
Alicia Hanson, city of Eugene, gave a presentation of the Metro Plan Amendment
Review process. (Copy in file).
Keir Miller, Land Management, distributed a supplemental memorandum from
staff (copy in file) and a two sided color diagram. He noted the supplemental
memorandum has attached to it a revised ordinance that if adopted would amend
the Metro Plan Boundary. He explained that the reason there is a revised
ordinance is that as a requirement of the Metro Plan, Chapter 4, Policy 7, each
jurisdiction participating in a Metro Plan Boundary Amendment must adopt
substantively identical ordinances affecting the change. He noted that city staff
reviewed the ordinance that Lane County came up with and they had some minor
modifications. He noted the ordinance was reviewed by Legal Counsel from each
of the cities and they have each developed a substantively identical ordinance that
would implement the change. He also distributed a decision tree diagram
regarding policy choices during deliberations. (Copy in file).
Miller explained the issue the County is seeking is one of equity. He said since
the early 90's the cities have exercised full jurisdictional autonomy over land use
matters that fall within their city limits. He said Lane County is a decision maker
in the land use actions that occur within their city limits, but this is not
reciprocated on County land. He indicated that the city can be a decision maker
on certain plan amendments outside of the UGB on rural lands. He noted the
cities have decision making powers that the County doesn't and that is the root of
the proposal. He indicated that Chapter 4, Policy7 in the Metro Plan requires any
proposed amendments to the Metro Plan be* ointly approved by the County and
the partner city or cities, otherwise the amendment is referred to the Metropolitan
Policy Committee for. study, possible conflict resolution and recommendations
back to the governing body.
3
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
Miller indicated that they are doing the amendment in two phases. He indicated
the first phase deals east of Interstate 5 in the area outside of the Springfield UGB.
He noted that Springfield is ahead in their HB3337 work program and they have
identified their parcel specific UGB. He said Lane County is proposing to amend
the Metro Plan boundaries so it is co- terminus with the new parcel specific UGB
that has been developed by the city of Springfield. He commented that no other
city has a boundary that extends outside the UGB. He said that cities typically
plan for further expansion within the UGB area and the Metro Plan is one step
beyond that. He stated the County's proposed solution is to modify the plan
boundary to move it back to make it co- terminus to the UGB. He noted there are
concerns over the Springfield Utility Board's drinking water supply. He thought
there might be similar issues on the Eugene side.
Miller reported there are six actions the County is proposing to do to modify the
plan boundaries. He added there are no policy amendments they are trying to
change in the Metro Plan at this time. He noted this was an issue that came up
during the Public Hearing of the Planning Commission. He indicated that they
are adopting the Springfield Parcel Specific UGB on the County's Comprehensive
Plan maps. He said they are applying plan designations to the lands leaving the
Metro Plan. He added that they need to receive some type of plan designation, as
currently Lane County carries the Metro Plan designations. He said Lane County
is proposing to apply corresponding plan designations within the Rural
Comprehensive Plan. He indicated Lane County would amend the Rural
Residential Zoning and there are minor rezones that need to occur as part of the
process. He added that Lane County would adopt Rural Comprehensive Plan
Policies to existing Goal 5 resources. He indicated that within the Metro Plan
there are adopted inventories for Goal 5 resources and since those areas will be
coming into County control, they would either need to go through a process to re-
inventory those lands or to adopt the inventories that have already been
established for those areas and apply the existing policies that are within the
Metro Plan into the Rural Comprehensive Plan to provide the proper protections
for those areas. He added that the net effect would be no change to the treatment
of Goal 5 resources in that area. He noted that the sixth proposal will be minor
housekeeping code changes necessary so the code reflects the new inventory of
Goal 5 resources in the Rural Comprehensive Plan.
Deanna Wright, Land Management, reported there are five affected areas equaling
80 properties where the zone change would take effect. She said the Metro Plan
RR Zoned land contains what is to be considered an outdated version of the Rural
Residential Zoning in the Oregon Administrative Rules. She said the changes are
necessary to gain consistency with the Goal 14 Rural Residential Oregon
Administrative Rules. She added that it is also known as the 1994 Community
Rule Change. She indicated that it was updated for the rest of the County zoned
0
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
RR lands during the County's last periodic review but the Community Rule
changes were not applied to the Metro Plan Boundary RR Lands because the
change was a Rural Comprehensive Plan Periodic work task. She added the Goal
14 Rule compels jurisdictions to come into compliance when they amend their
plan provisions that apply to rural lands. She said if the Metro Plan Boundary is
to be adjusted; the rezone items will all need to be approved.
Miller explained that the final two components to the Rural Comprehensive Plan
changes are adopting Goal 5 regulations into the Lane Rural Comprehensive Plan
and removing references to the Metro Plan within the Riparian Code Ordinance.
He indicated those are considered housekeeping changes and if they make the
changes, they have to amend the riparian regulations to take out existing
references to the area that will no longer exist within the Metro Plan.
Ralston asked what happens to Springfield's Riparian Zone requirement when
adopting Goal 5. He asked if Lane County's requirement was different than
Springfield.
Greg Mott, city of Springfield, responded that there is not a direct answer. He
indicated that the city of Springfield undertook the periodic review assignment to
update their Goal 5 inventories within their UGB. He said that occurred during a
rule change regarding Goal 5 preservation. He noted that each city was able to
determine the values they would place on their Goal 5 inventories based on
protection regulations. He added that Springfield's are different than the city of
Eugene. He stated they recognize their wetlands and stream corridors based on
flow volume and presence of fish. He said at the time they were evaluating for
Goal 5 they were also subject to the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water
Act. He reported that they applied a simple preservation protection setback along
the streams, based on a. 75 foot measurement. He added that they have adopted
measures to regulate the activities that can occur in that setback but they are
specific to streams of a certain volume and the presence of fish. He stated that
there is no guaranty their measures are the same as the city of Eugene or Lane
County.
Ralston asked about Lane County's requirements.
Miller explained that for Lane County's riparian regulations, because of the Metro
Plan and boundary, their current regulations inside the Metro Plan follow the
same as Springfield's based on the cubic feet per second flow. He added the
setbacks are either 50 feet or 75 feet. He reported that outside of the Metro Plan
Boundary, Lane County's riparian regulations are either 50 feet or 100 feet. He
explained that what they are proposing to do would create a larger buffer by
changing the riparian ordinances.
5
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
Ralston commented that as a Springfield City Councilor he wasn't sure that he
would want to have the same buffers Lane County is proposing because they are
talking about lands adjacent to Springfield that could someday come under
Springfield's jurisdiction and they will have to deal with buffer zones that don't
make sense.
Mott explained that the city of Springfield's regulations apply only within their
jurisdiction which is the UGB. He said in the event the city of Springfield sought
to expand the UGB, one of their obligations in the expansion would be to identify
Goal 5 resources. He said the County will have adopted their inventory. He
believed they would be subject to their own standards once it was being
considered for inclusion in their UGB. He said they would probably recommend
the city standard be adopted.
Handy stated that he will need persuading about the phasing approach and why
they are doing some of the changes with the Metro Plan now as opposed to some
of the other things that need addressing. He recalled this started with the County
in 2009 when they wanted to see issues of jurisdictional representation and
authority dealt with in the unincorporated and unannexed areas inside the UGB.
He said they wanted to see issues addressed with River Road and Santa Clara and
in North Springfield. He asked if there was anything drafted for the River Road
Santa Clara area.
Howe responded that the recommendations the JEO acted on (providing direction
to staff on specific changes to the Metro Plan) were the direction on overarching
policies that identify and address regional issues. He added they were policies
that allow for individual refinement plans for Eugene and Springfield and
adjustment to the Metro Plan Boundary and text to address jurisdiction specific
issues arising in the urbanizable areas and the area outside the UGB. He noted
that tonight they are working on the area outside the UGB and the areas inside the
UGB. He also noted that the Envision Eugene is addressing the River Road Santa
Clara issues.
Miller reported that they have had public input on this process. He said after the
Board gave direction to process this proposal in a phased approach, they had a
public work session in April. He commented that it was not well attended and
there wasn't a lot of interest in the project initially. He indicated they sent out
notice to 2,600 landowners and they had a discussion during the Planning
Commission process. He said as a result, 23 comments were submitted during the
Planning Commission Public Hearing. He noted five were in support; ten in
opposition and the rest were neutral. He reported the major concern they heard
initially was that this proposal would negatively impact regional planning efforts.
rel
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
He added that it was echoed by several people who gave testimony. He indicated
that County staff response was that regional planning will still carry forward. He
said the Metro Plan is not going away as a result of the proposal and there will
still be incidents where the cities and the County will have to coordinate on
planning efforts. He noted the plan limits the area the cities might have a say in,
but it doesn't stop regional planning efforts. He said many people thought they
shouldn't address this as a phased approach. He said it was put on their work plan
this year to deal with this phase. He indicated the city of Eugene is not in a place
yet with their UGB where the County could initiate this process.
Miller stated that he had heard a blanket fear that this would lead to annexation,
but this project has nothing to do with annexation. He added that it won't change
the annexation policies with the cities. He indicated that part of this is dealing
with the Donna Robinson property. He said she is hamstrung by some of the
policies in the Metro Plan that currently exist and adoption of this proposal would
address her concerns. He noted the big issue that came up during the joint
Planning Commission Public Hearing process was a concern over the Springfield
Utility Board's drinking water. He said in the process of moving the boundary,
Lane County would be the sole decision maker on those types of land use issues.
He indicated that the criteria and zoning is the same, it is about who makes the
decision on the land use change.
Miller reported that four potential options came out of the Planning Commission
Public Hearing to deal with the Springfield Utility Board's issue. He said the first
option would be to move the plan boundary as proposed except leaving out the
large area. He added that the second option would be to move the boundary but
have Lane County adopt some type of drinking water protection plan like
Springfield has in place that would address Springfield's drinking water concerns.
He indicated the third option is to move the plan boundary and develop an
intergovernmental .agreement between the County and the city that would enable
the city to be a decision maker on certain types of actions they feel would impact
the ground water. He added there is also a no alternative option to address the
Springfield issue. He reported that the Lane County Planning Commission voted
7 -2 to deny the proposal. He said they unanimously voted to amend the maps to
show Springfield's parcel specific UGB, a requirement of state law. He said the
Eugene Planning Commission voted 3 -2 to support the amendment and the
Springfield Planning Commission voted 4 -2 to support the amendment with the
understanding that the County and the city enter into some type of agreement to
address the Springfield Utility Board's concerns. He said if they agree on
changing the plan boundary, the Rural Comprehensive Plan Amendments item 2
through 6 need to happen if a plan boundary has changed. He said if consensus is
not reached, what would need to occur is for no action to be taken on the Rural
Comp Plan amendments. He said they could direct staff to implement an
7
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
ordinance to adopt Springfield's parcel specific UGB or they could direct staff to
modify the proposals.
A. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING /ORDINANCE NO. PA 1281 /In
the Matter of Amending the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
(Metro Plan) by Adopting a New Metro Plan Boundary that is Coterminous with
the City of Springfield Urban Growth Boundary. East of Interstate 5; and
Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses.
SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING /ORDINANCE NO. PA 1283/In
the Matter of Amending the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan by Applying
Plan Designations to Lands Removed from the Metro Plan Pursuant to
ORDINANCE NO. PA 1281; Adopting the City of Springfield Parcel Specific
UGB Boundary on official Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan Maps to
Comply with OAR 660 - 024 - 0020(2) and Adopting Savings and Severability
Clauses.
SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING /ORDINANCE NO. PA 1284/In
the Matter of Amending the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan by Rezoning
Rural Residential Lands Regulated Under Lane Code 16.231, Which were
Removed from the Metro Plan Pursuant to ORDINANCE NO. PA 1281, with
Updated Rural Residential Zone Language Contained in Lane Code 16.290 and
Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses.
SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING /ORDINANCE NO. PA 1290 /In
the Matter of Amending the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan to Apply
Goal 5 Inventories, Policies and Findings of the Eugene Springfield Metropolitan
Area General Plan to those Lands Removed from the Metro Plan by
ORDINANCE NO. PA 1281 and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses.
SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING /ORDINANCE NO. 2 -12 in the
Matter of Amending Lane Code Chapter 16 by Modifying Existing Stream
Riparian Regulations to Continue Applying Safe Harbor Setbacks to Goal 5
Riparian Resources on Lands Removed from the Metro Plan by ORDINANCE
NO. PA 1281 (LC16.253)
Leiken opened the meeting for the Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Present from Lane County were Board Chair Sid Leiken, Jay Bozievich, Rob
Handy and Faye Stewart present. Pete Sorenson was excused.
Mayor Piercy opened the meeting for the Eugene City Council. Present from the
Eugene City Council were Mayor Kitty Piercy, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling,
E
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
George Brown, Pat Farr and Chris Pryor. Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka and Betty
Taylor were excused.
Mayor Lundberg opened the meeting for the Springfield City Council. Present
from the Springfield City Council were Mayor Christine Lundberg, Sheri Moore,
Dave Ralston, Joe Pishioneri and Sean Van Gordon. Hillary Wylie and Marilee
Woodrow were excused.
Leiken explained that tonight they are holding a joint Public Hearing of the
Eugene and Springfield City Councils and Lane County elected officials to
consider amendments to the Eugene Springfield Metropolitan General Plan,
commonly referred to as the Metro Plan. He added that the Lane County Board of
Commissioners will be considering related amendments that are specific to the
Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan for areas that are removed from the
Metro Plan.
Mott explained that the Springfield City Council is conducting a joint hearing and
the First Reading on the following ordinance: an Ordinance amending the Eugene
Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Metro Plan by adopting a new Metro
Plan Boundary that is co- terminus with the city of Springfield UGB, east of
Interstate 5 and adopting savings and severability clauses.
Leiken stated the Board's decision will be subject to findings of fact showing
compliance with the applicable Metro Plan policies, Rural Comprehensive Plan
policies and Lane Code criteria sited in the staff report. He said that evidence and
testimony must be directed toward the approval criteria and testimony not
directed toward the approval criteria is irrelevant to this land use proceeding.
Miller explained that Lane County has initiated an amendment to modify the
boundaries of the Eugene Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. He said
pursuant to Chapter 4, Policies 5 a and 6, implementation of this amendment
requires review and approval by each of the Metro Plan partners. He added that
in addition to the Metro Plan Boundary Amendment, Lane County is also
proposing several related amendments to the Rural Comprehensive Plan which
will be necessary if an amendment to the Metro Plan Boundary is adopted. He
stated these Rural Comp Plan specific proposals must be reviewed in a Public
Hearing of the Lane County Board of Commissioners. He noted the proposals
under consideration would perform the following six actions: 1) to amend the
Metro Plan Diagram and Boundary Maps to modify the Metro Plan boundary east
of Interstate 5, so the boundary is co- terminus with the parcel specific UGB that
has been developed by the city of Springfield. He explained that action would
remove 12.5 square miles of land currently under jurisdiction of the Metro Plan
and place it under the jurisdiction of the Rural Comprehensive Plan. He added
9
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
that action will not change the plan designations for any properties that remain
within the Metro Plan boundary after this action.
Miller noted the current and proposed Metro Plan diagram map and boundary
maps are included as Exhibit A through D to attachment 1 in the packet. (Copy in
file) He indicated that legal staff from each jurisdiction have developed
substantively identical ordinances that if approved would implement these
amendments.
Miller explained that Action 2 would amend the city of Springfield's parcel
specific UGB on Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan maps. He said that
Action 3 would apply correctly corresponding Rural Comp Plan designations to
lands previously designated under the Metro Plan. He added that the Rural Comp
maps that depict both current and proposed parcel specific UGB change and the
Comp Plan designation change are Exhibits K through R to attachment 2 in the
packets. (Copy in file). He explained that Action 4 would update the Rural
Residential Zone updating of properties removed from the Metro Plan to maintain
consistency with residential zoning regulations applied to other lands within the
Rural Comp Plan boundaries. He noted the current and proposed official zone
maps depicting these changes are included as Exhibits A to F in attachment 3 and
the current and proposed residential zone language has been included as
attachment 11 and 12 in legislative and standard format in the packets. (Copy in
file).
Miller indicated that Action 5 would amend Rural Comprehensive Policies to
apply existing Goal 5 Metro Plan policies to Goal 5 resources removed from the
Metro Plan. He said the proposed Rural Comprehensive Policy is included in
Exhibits A and B to attachment 4. He noted that Action 6 would perform minor
housekeeping amendments to Lane Code 16.253 to maintain existing Safe Harbor
riparian setback regulations to lands removed from the Metro Plan. He indicated
the changes are shown in attachment 21 in the packet. (Copy in file). He added
because the Metro Plan and the Rural Comp Plan amendments are interrelated, all
of the amendments will be the subject of tonight's hearing and public testimony
may be directed toward any of the proposals.
Miller reported that notice of tonight's Public Hearing was mailed out to
approximately 2,600 property owners within or adjacent to the proposed boundary
adjustment area and an ad announcing tonight's hearing was published in The
Register Guard. He recalled a First Reading and announcement of the Public
Hearing occurred on February 21 in accordance with the requirements of the Lane
Charter and a public information open house concerning the proposal was held on
April 21, 2011. He noted on July 19, 2011 a joint hearing between the Eugene,
Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions was opened. He added that
IL
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
hearing was continued to August where additional testimony was heard. He said
the Planning Commissions then closed the Public Hearing and left the record open
for four additional weeks to allow additional written testimony to be submitted
into the record. He recalled that during the Planning Commission process, 23
comments were received on the proposals. He indicated that staff responses are
reflected in the adopted minutes to the joint Planning Commission Public Hearing
process and in supplemental memos to the Planning Commission. He said the
minutes and supplemental memos have been included in the packet materials as
attachments 15 through 20. (Copy in file). He reported on October 25, the
Planning Commission deliberations on the proposal were held and the Lane
County Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposal by a vote of
7 -2. He added the Eugene Planning Commission voted 3 -2 to recommend
approval of the proposal and the Springfield Planning Commission voted 4 -2 to
recommend approval with a condition that Springfield and Lane County enter into
an intergovernmental agreement to address concerns about Springfield's drinking
water. He stated that Lane County staff recommends approval of the Metro Plan
Boundary amendment and related Rural Comprehensive Plan amendments. He
added that detailed findings of facts supporting this recommendation have been
provided as Exhibit E to attachment 1. (Copy in file). He said it should be noted
that if deliberations begin tonight, Springfield and Eugene elected officials should
limit their deliberations to the Metro Plan Boundary amendment element only.
He added if consensus on the Metro Plan Boundary change is reached then the
Lane County Board of Commissioners may deliberate and take action on the
Rural Comp Plan specific amendments. He noted in addition to the 23 comments
they received, they have received two other pieces of testimony to be entered into
the record. (Copy in file).
Commissioner Leiken opened the Public Hearing.
Donna Robinson, Springfield, said her family owns the 8.6 acre parcel that lies on
the far eastern border of the Metro Plan. She had given previous public
testimony in favor of Phase 1 of the Metro Plan as this amendment would remove
her property from the Plan and would permit her to split the lot in half as
originally planned. She said the written facts in tonight's packet do not tell the
important element of her story. She said the facts make her sound like a
disgruntled old lady who has a five acre zone and wants a two acre zone. She said
that was not what happened. She explained that when they purchased the acreage
in August 2008, Lane County assured her that the property was zoned RR2 and
that she could divide the property in half for her sons and that was why they
purchased the property. She stated that Lane County staff failed to note the
property lies within the jurisdiction of the Metro Plan and is subject to the
restrictive RR5 zone. She indicated that eight months into the partition process
the County caught their error and called her saying she had a problem. She added
11
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
that it has been four years since they purchased the property. She indicated that
neither of her sons can obtain a construction loan until they own their half of the
parcel and that can't happen until they can partition the land. She recalled that
last October one of the planners pointed out that there is a process she can follow
if she wanted a zoning change. She was aware of the filing fee of $26,458 and
that the process could be risky and could fail. She stated that this was all to
rectify a mistake that was made by the County, not by her. She said that they
followed all the rules and contacted the proper officials, paid the necessary fees
and they were assured the land was zoned RR2 and they purchased the property
on that basis. She commented that they have a problem with accountability and
transparency. She said if her property is zoned RR2 but she has an overlay zone
of RR5 for properties in the Metro Plan, she should have been told of that fact.
She added that to date there are only four rural residential parcels in the whole
Metro Plan that could be partitioned and if they added them, there would only be
nine parcels in the entire plan. She asked that if the amendment doesn't pass, to
find one of the options outlined in the packet that would help her family.
Janet Calvert, Eugene, stated that she represented the League of Women Voters of
Lane County. She said the League of Women Voters is a non - partisan grass roots
organization that encourages citizen participation in government. She said their
group studies and reaches positions on issues of concern to the public well being
and public policy. She said the League is concerned about the proposal of the
County to exert jurisdictional control over the lands that lie between the UGB and
the Metro Plan boundary. She said they support interjurisdictional planning
authority with comprehensive citizen participation that supports and coordinates
sustainable development and considers the impact of growth decisions on adjacent
areas over the long term. She said the quality of drinking water for Eugene and
Springfield is at risk under this proposal.. She indicated that at this time there are
no County protective regulations regarding water quality or the resources to
provide them. She said the League believes that interdependence of land use
planning and water planning must be recognized and required at all levels of
government. She commented that water is a resource that should be managed for
the benefit of the public and sustainable habitat for all life forms. She said the
League opposes Ordinance PA 1281 and urges the Board of Commissioners to
reject it.
Mia Nelson, Eugene, 1000 Friends of Oregon, commented that this is a major
change and one of the most important decisions they might ever make. She asked
for Springfield and Eugene to be careful. She said this is only about the County's
ability to say no. She stated that if the cities say yes to this, they will have the
same rights that any citizen has and not more. She didn't understand why the city
would give that up. She commented that this is not just about the County and
12
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
Springfield; there are substantive rights for Eugene at stake. She thought the
phased idea was a bad idea. She stated there is no urgency to this.
Robert Emmons, Fall Creek, said he is President of Landwatch Lane County. He
commented that it was disingenuous to say that this proposal would retain
regional. planning. He said when Springfield instigated HB3337 to separate itself
from Eugene; regional planning was on the way out. He commented with
Metropolitan Planning, Eugene, Springfield and Lane County benefit singularly
and collectively by having a governing body where decisions of regional import
are based on the separate but equal authority of its three jurisdictions. He said
that land use decisions that affect Eugene and Springfield affect the County as a
whole and the reverse is true. He thought that regional or inter jurisdictional
planning could help mitigate or eliminate negative impacts and protect common
resources.
Kate Kelly, Eugene, said she is speaking as a private citizen and River Road
resident. She recalled that since the 80's Eugene, Springfield and Lane County
have worked jointly concerning issues around the Metro Plan Boundary and all
three jurisdictions have had a joint voice in what is happening in the areas. She
stated there is a move by the present Board of Commissioners to do away with
this long established tradition. She added that the Board wants to establish sole
authority for the land between the UGB and the Metro Plan, leaving Springfield
and Eugene without a voice in how these lands are developed. She said she was
concerned about the potential of water quality. She asked why Springfield would
give up authority over its drinking water and leave it to the discretion of the
County. She noted that both Eugene and Springfield are looking to expand the
UGB's in the future so she didn't know why this issue was taking place now. She
was concerned about eliminating the checks and balances that are in place. She
asked the elected officials to think long and hard about giving up this right.
Carleen Reilly, Eugene, said she was dismayed at Lane County's efforts to give
County Commissioner's sole authority over property between the UGB and the
Metro Plan Boundary. She thought advance planning would allow the Sheriff s
Office and other emergency services to focus on crime, health emergencies and
house fires instead of being engaged in search and rescue during flooding. She
commented that the drinking water ordinances proposed for the McKenzie would
have come in handy in dealing with the flood conditions they experienced. She
thought prevention would have been less expensive and less emotional wrenching
than cleaning up the crisis. She stated that water must be their first priority over
gravel resources. She thought County staff could focus on their primary task
instead of throwing all personnel into search and rescue. She commented that
regional planning is a prevention measure and a flood is a failure to plan. She
13
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
urged that the Metro Boundary UGB region be maintained with multiple
jurisdiction decision making.
Lee Deveau, Eugene, said she was in opposition to the proposal by the Lane
County Board of Commissioners to amend the current Metro Plan. She stated that
she is a resident concerned about her community. She thought the Metro Plan
should continue in its present form as a collaborative process between the cities of
Eugene and Springfield and Lane County. She thought it was appropriate and
important that the two cities have a vote on proposed development and it would
be negligent for the cities to abdicate their responsibility to their residents and
leave land use decisions solely in the jurisdiction of Lane County. She stated the
Metro Plan has served its function well as a collaborative planning tool that
includes all stakeholders in decision making. She thought they would be doing
more collaboration instead of less. She urged the cities of Springfield and Eugene
to vote against the proposed amendment and continue the current Metro Plan.
Jozef Siekiel Zdzienicki, Eugene, opposed Ordinance PA 1281. He said the
interface between urban and rural areas is the one where the most conflicts arise.
He said if the ordinance is passed, there will be less voices heard. He thought the
Robinson issue could be solved with site specific designations. He thought the
water issue in Springfield could be resolved with an IGA.
Walt Johnson, Eugene, asked that Ordinance PA 1281 not be approved. He was
concerned with the acceptance of this proposal that LCOG will disappear. He
said if that is the case, more citizen involvement will be taken out of the picture.
He thought since they were on the cusp of making UGB decisions, it makes more
sense to do that now.
Joel Narva, Eugene, said he sent a letter to the elected officials. He said his
comments are addressed to the city councilors of Eugene and Springfield. He
asked them to deny Ordinance PA 1281. He thought if the city councils give up
their authority they might be making a huge mistake. He commented that if the
cities give up their sole authority of the lands to the County, it will be easier for
industries and sand and gravel and residential developments that are not
appropriate for the cities' urban atmosphere to be approved easily and quicker.
He stated to the city councilors that if they vote for this plan amendment, they are
shirking their duty to their constituents because they will be giving up their
authority on these important boundary questions-.
Amy Chintz, Springfield Utility Board, Springfield, said she is SUB's water
quality protection coordinator and she was speaking on behalf of SUB. She stated
that SUB was concerned that the proposal to modify the Metro Plan Boundary to
be co- terminus with the Springfield UGB, weakens Springfield's ability to protect
14
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
its drinking water sources. She -noted that 31 out of 35 SUB and Rainbow Water
District wells are located outside the UGB. She stated the source of over 75
percent of Springfield's total groundwater based production capacity is located
between the UGB and the Metro Plan Boundary. She noted that the Metro Plan
establishes a means for coordinating planning across jurisdictional lines. She said
planning for the protection of drinking water source areas that follow hydrologic
instead of jurisdictional boundaries is a logical subject for cross jurisdictional
coordination. She reported that currently any proposed zone change within the
Metro Plan boundary that would have an effect on Springfield's water supply
would allow for multi jurisdictional decision making. She added that this process
allows the city of Springfield to participate in major decisions that could affect its
own municipal water source. She stated the proposed modification to the Metro
Plan Boundary would remove the city of Springfield from this process for areas .
between the UGB and the current metro plan boundary. She said SUB, Rainbow
Water District and the city of Springfield adopted a pro active drinking water
protection program in 1999. She said they value the partnership with the County
and look forward to furthering their work together but even with successful
partnerships with Lane County, they view the city of Springfield's participation
and decision that could affect their water supply absolutely essential. She
believed it was possible to avoid the setbacks for drinking water protection while
still meeting the County's goal of establishing jurisdictional autonomy. She asked
that this conversation continue during the JEO process so they can be sure that
shrinking the Metro Plan boundary does not lead to any unintended harmful
consequences.
Joe Meyers, Springfield, said that he has lived in Springfield his entire life. He
noted that the cities of Eugene and Springfield are inside of Lane County and
surrounded by Lane County and not the other way around. He believed they
should have some sort of control on what goes on directly around the cities. He
thought it would be bad for an entity. to have sole jurisdiction over so many
people. He thought it added to mistrust and the potential abuse of power.
Donna Riddle, Eugene, said she would personally benefit from Phase 2 because
she has five acres that border the UGB west of I -5 and the city limits of Eugene.
She said her main concern is clean water. She stated that interjursidicitonal
decision making on water is better to protect the rivers and the other wetlands.
Rodney Mew, Springfield, said he has a shop near Cedar Creek. He said if
there are setbacks, he asked what the affect would be on the operation of his shop.
Leiken indicated that what was submitted tonight will be part of the record. He
added that failure to raise an issue to enable a response, may preclude an appeal to
15
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
LUBA. He stated that only persons who qualify as a party may appeal the actual
decision of the elected officials to LUBA.
Commissioner Leiken closed the Public Hearing for the Lane County Board of
Commissioners.
Mayor Piercy closed the Public Hearing for the Eugene City Council.
Mayor Lundberg closed the Public Hearing for the Springfield City Council.
Stewart said this has been going on for a number of years and the Board gave
direction over a year ago to move forward with this phased approach: He added it
was the recommendation because Springfield was further ahead in their UGB
work than Eugene and Lane County was approached with Mrs. Robinson's family
issue and he thought it was one of the most logical ways to move it forward to fix.
He stated that this metro boundary is specific to Springfield. He indicated this
exercise is trying to find out if the metro boundary is appropriate and having the
discussion to see if it is worthy to have it go back to a different location or leave it
alone.
Handy thought they had the cart before the horse on this issue. He noted in River
Road and Santa Clara, a Mr. and Mrs. Getty fell into a no man's land. He
indicated that the Board worked for a legislative fix to address that particular
parcel. He added that was passed in the legislature without any controversy. He
said it avoided the bigger issue that has unintended consequences they haven't
looked at. He thought they should look at a site specific redesignation to look at
to address the concerns of some of the property owners without their moving into
the bigger proposal. He wanted a fifth or sixth option to address Mrs. Robinson
and others' concerns while they have broader concerns about the bigger issue.
Ralston stated that he did not have a problem with the phased approach as it made
sense. He said according to what they have heard tonight, for the areas between
the Metro Plan Boundary and the city limits, Lane County will have sole decision
making authority. He thought those areas were close enough to Springfield that
Springfield should have code decision making. He did not like an all or nothing
proposition. He didn't like any of the options but he said if they change the
boundaries and go the phased in route, that Eugene, Springfield and Lane County
would have code decision making. He said for Phase 2 he would support Eugene
and Lane County having authority on their sections too. He added if the areas
outlined are going to be solely for Lane County decision making, then he
wouldn't support it.
16
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
Bozievich asked if there were any wellhead protection ordinances that cover the
areas outside of the Springfield UGB currently.
Chinitz responded that there are no local ordinances. She indicated that the
wellhead zones extend quite a bit. She added that they have their wellhead
production areas delineated out to the 99 year, time of travel.
Bozievich asked how many of the wells that lie in the area are under the influence
of surface water.
Chintz reported their Willamette Well Field has 13 wells designated as being
under the direct influence of surface water. She added that they run that through a
treatment plant and they have one well in the Thurston Well Field that is
designated. She said the actual ground water under the direct influence of surface
water is active in their Willamette Well Field where they have their treatment
plant.
Bozievich commented that there is little protection in the area they are discussing
and how much of the area that needs to be protected is outside the plan boundary.
He reiterated that there is a request to have some jurisdiction in an area where
there is none. He said he had no objection in the future to Lane County adopting
a wellhead protection ordinance in the zones they are discussing, similar to the
fact that they have adopted pollution discharge with regard to stormwater
regulations that are the same as the city of Eugene. With regard to sole
jurisdiction, Bozievich asked under what authority Lane County exercises their
Rural Comp Plan.
Miller responded that it is an acknowledged Rural Comprehensive Plan under the
statewide planning program. He added that Lane County's plan has been
acknowledged by the state and that is the authority they have to administer their
Rural Comp Plan.
Bozievich said this is a question of having representation in the body that actually
has jurisdiction over the land they own. He thought it was questionable in the
UGB areas. He said the issue is they have people who live in an area who are not
able to ever vote for a city council member but with the Metro Plan Boundary, the
city council members are allowed to have jurisdiction over land use. He asked if
there is a question about jurisdiction, why they are stopping where the Metro Plan
Boundary is now. He indicated the Metro Plan is a leftover artifact of a 1968 plan
that was developed before the statewide planning goals were made and Lane
County is the only jurisdiction in the entire state that has it. He added that it takes
away the rights of people to have representation and the people governing their
land. He stated that is why he wants to make them co- terminus. He thought this
17
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
was about being fair to the people who own the land. He thought they could deal
with the issues by coming up with agreements and passing their own wellhead
protection ordinances. He didn't think Lane County having sole jurisdiction was
endangering the water quality of Springfield or Eugene. He added that all of
Eugene's water comes under the sole jurisdiction of Lane County.
Ortiz said she was concerned about this. She said that Eugene has been going
through a lot of work around Envision Eugene. She added that they are working
on the issues of Santa Clara River Road and what they can do to help be better
neighbors. She hoped that they can have that conversation before any of this gets
decided. She asked what the next steps would be for the jurisdictions.
Miller explained that is up to the elected officials whether or not they want to
continue deliberations. He recommended a joint deliberation as it is better for the
public and it is more efficient. He added, that if they can't conclude deliberations
this evening, they can coordinate a future date. He stated it was important to give
the date, time and place of the future deliberations so they don't have to notice it.
Emily Jerome, city of Eugene, didn't think anyone anticipated additional hearings
from the governing bodies. She wanted to know if the elected officials were
going to close the record. She added that then the three jurisdictions would
deliberate on their own and those minutes would be included in the overall record
and the three jurisdictions make decisions separately. She stated that because the
city of Eugene is the least affected, they would wait until Lane County and
Springfield makes their decisions.
Ortiz requested to leave the record open for one week for additional comments
and this would be the city of Eugene's last Public - Hearing on this matter.
Mott explained that the Springfield City Council cannot make a decision on the
night of the First Hearing and Public Hearing. He added that was stated in their
charter. He indicated there was a need for the Springfield City Council to have a
work session. He said it was rare for the elected officials to reconvene after their
initial Public Hearing to jointly deliberate on the same night. He added the
,protocol is that for whichever entity initiated the hearing to be the first to act and
then the other jurisdictions would act as soon thereafter if they can, assuming they
All adopt identical records. He recommended that the city of Springfield have a
work session that will occur in May.
Moore said she had concerns about Phase 1. She asked how Ordinance PA 1281
was advantageous to the city of Springfield. She added that she had heard things
that made it advantageous to Lane County.
18
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
Lundberg indicated that issue needs to be discussed in a work session to look at
what it means for the city of Springfield.
Miller explained that the intent is to help provide recourse and accountability to
the elected officials for the people who live outside of the area but who are
impacted by the decisions that the elected officials make. He said the County is
interested in a quality relationship among all of the jurisdictions. He indicated
that the cities currently enjoy decision making autonomy within the city limits but
the County doesn't have the same authority and this reciprocates that relationship
and it helps the cities and the County.
Councilor George Brown left at 8:20 p.m. There is no quorum for.the city of
Eugene.
Piercy commented that there is a strongly improved relationship between the three
jurisdictions and a current good working relationship. She thought that they were
at the front end of the water issue. She thought it is going to get more
challenging. She added that water issues are the issue of the future. She thought
they needed to be thoughtful before they relinquish any oversight over water.
Poling concurred that they should keep the record open for one week. He recalled
they started the meeting with a quorum but Councilor Brown had to leave. He
asked if they could put out a motion and vote on it.
Jerome responded that the Eugene City Council cannot take action without a
quorum. She thought they could discuss this issue at the next meeting.
Poling recommended that the city of Eugene not have another Public Hearing on
this issue. He wanted to make sure the city of Eugene was the third group to take
action in this process. He thought they needed another work session to discuss
this issue.
Piercy asked about extending the record without a quorum.
Jerome said the city of Eugene cannot close the record these evening. She said
the default for the city is the record remains open and tomorrow there is a meeting
at noon when they will have a quorum. She recommended moving forward with
the city of Springfield and Lane County to take the action they want to take. She
recommended that all three jurisdictions do the same thing with the record. She
said if they have to file a LUBA record, they want to file it as one.
Pishioneri commented that this was one of the first JEO meetings where he had
enjoyed the comment and thoughtfulness that had been shown. He concurred that
19
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
they have huge water issues. He said with their combined abilities within their
jurisdictions, they can place protections and get to where everyone wants to go
but it will take work. He was willing to move forward with this as long as they
keep in mind that the County will have to put wellhead protections in place.
Lundberg stated that they have come to a new level of cooperation. She agreed
with Bozievich on many points. She agreed that water is an issue for everyone.
She thought from this meeting they will go back and have a meaningful work
session. She added that many options are workable.
Farr commented that he was happy they were moving forward with this.
Leiken thought the relationships between Springfield, Eugene and Lane County
have improved greatly since HB 3 3 3 7 passed. He commented that no matter what
they end up doing, that drinking water will be protected. He added that it is a
large priority for him.
MOTION: to move that the Lane County Board of Commissioners close the
public record on Tuesday March 27 at 5:00 p.m.
Bozievich MOVED,
Stewart asked that the motion include a Third Reading and Deliberation of the
ordinances for June 13, 2012.
Bozievich modified his motion: to close the Public Record at 5:00 p.m. on March
27 and set the Third Reading for June 13, 2012 for Ordinance PA 1281,
Ordinance -PA -1283, Ordinance PA 1284, Ordinance PA 1290 and Ordinance
No. 2 -12.
Stewart SECONDED.
VOTE: 4 -0.
Ralston thought since Lane County was taking the lead on this, they should make
a decision before anyone else.
MOTION: to move to keep the record open for two more weeks to March 27 and
have a work session on May 16.
Pishioneri MOVED, Moore SECONDED.
VOTE: 4 -0.
20
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
Stewart stated that he had concerns about the additional layer and different land
use laws that apply inside the Metro Boundary. He thought if at a minimum the
land use laws were the same as what is allowed in the County, that Ms. Robinson
would have been able to proceed. He indicated they are different now. He said
the reason the Metro Boundary was there was the potential for growth in the
future, but they were told because of the location of the piece of property,
Springfield will not be able to justify moving in that direction. He commented
that there are protections on the land to protect it from future growth from the city
but there is no intent to move it out. He thought that needed to be dealt with. He
said they need to bring the plan up to date to what the needs are today.
Piercy said if it deals with representation, she wants to make sure that no decision
they are making over representation will be balled up in that discussion. She
added the same applies with the Santa Clara River Road area representation
issues.
Leiken commented that was why the phased approach makes sense to pursue.
Commissioner Leiken adjourned the meeting for the Lane County Board of
Commissioners at 9:05 p.m.
Mayor Lundberg adjourned the meeting for the Springfield City Council at 9:05
p.m.
Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council at 9:05 p.m.
Melissa Zimmer
Recording Secretary
Attest:
,my Sewft-
City Recorder
21
i
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor