JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS' MEETING

April 4, 2001

5:30 p.m. (McNutt Room, City of Eugene)

6:30 p.m. (Public Hearing - Eugene City Council Chambers)

APPROVED 5/2/01

 

Mayor Jim Torrey, City of Eugene, called to order the meeting of the Eugene City Council.  Present:  Bonny Bettman, Pat Farr, David Kelly, Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Gary Pape, Gary Rayor and Betty Taylor.

 

Commissioner Anna Morrison reconvened the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners.  Present:  Bobby Green, Sr., Peter Sorenson and Cindy Weeldreyer.  Bill Dwyer was excused.

 

Springfield City Councilor Tammy Fitch called to order the Springfield City Council.   Present:  Christine Lundberg, David Ralston, and Fred Simmons.  Springfield Mayor Leiken was not yet present.

 

1. JOINT WORK SESSION

 

Carol Heinkel, LCOG, explained the public facility and service plan was proposed as a refinement plan to the Metro Plan and is a periodic review work task.  She added that when it becomes adopted, it would complete the Metro Plan periodic review.  She gave a slide presentation.

 

Heinkel said that the public facility and service plan ensures that key urban facilities and services will be provided to planned land uses in the urban growth boundary in a timely, efficient and environmentally responsible manner.  She added it provided coordinated framework for public facility planning within the urban growth boundary and complied with statewide planning Goal 11.  She noted the planning commissions of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County had unanimously recommended the refinement plan.  She said the plan was prepared by 16 agencies and there was a subcommittee that met with school administrators from the region.

 

Heinkel recalled there was extensive opportunities for public involvement throughout the process.  She said the process began in July 1998 and there had been list of interested parties (1,200 names) and they notified people on the list. She noted there was a workshop in April 1999 and an open house in October 2000 which were not well attended.  She added this information is posted on the LCOG website.

 

Heinkel stated there were two products in the study, a draft public facilities and services plan and an existing conditions and alternative report.  She noted there are three urban reserve areas outside the urban growth boundary intended to serve land requirements beyond 20 years.

 

Heinkel noted that the text amendment to the Metro Plan and the planned water, wastewater, storm water and an electrical project list were all adopted as part of the Metro Plan.  She said the electrical facilities were included in the Public Facilities and Services Plan at the request of the providers, but was not required by law.

 

Heinkel stated there was research and discussion about nodal development proposed as part of TransPlan and there is a policy in the Public Facilities and Services Plan to coordinate services to areas targeted for high density infill by mixed use and nodal development.

 

Heinkel explained that storm water was a major focus of the plan because the last Public Facilities and Services Plan was adopted in 1987, at the same time as the Clean Water Act, including new federal requirements related to storm water and the protection of water quality. 

 

Heinkel noted another theme was coordinating school planning with land use planning. She said at this point the policy direction was to initiate a process on school height, site size and location.  She added that local governments have some regulatory authority to retain neighborhood schools and buildings and support retention of the university and Lane Community College.

 

Heinkel explained that locating public facilities outside the urban growth boundary was a major theme.  She said there were no policies in the past but the area had grown to the point where it was necessary to locate some facilities outside the urban growth boundary. She noted they received a signed letter from DLCD which gave clear communication on the state’s position.  She said they are to locate new school buildings in the metro plan boundary within the urban growth boundary and that it is consistent with state law.  She added the other point is to locate new urban water, wastewater and storm water facilities on farmland and forestland outside of the urban growth boundary when there is no reasonable alternative and that it exclusively serves land inside the urban growth boundary and complies with state and local requirements.  She added it is also for protecting fish bearing streams outside the urban growth boundary, consistent with Lane County riparian standards.

 

Heinkel said there was policy requiring development to pay the cost of extending urban facilities, (allowing a subsidy when consistent with local goals and policies) using SDC’s, user fees and other tools to fund operations, maintenance and improvements.  She added direction was given to relate wastewater and storm water fees to the system and to continue intergovernmental cooperation and assessment.

 

Regarding public involvement, Heinkel said they had two open houses, a joint planning commission/public hearing. The planning commissions recommended approval unanimously.  She added that following tonight’s meeting, there would be local adoption and acknowledgement by LCDC.

 

Nancy Nathanson, Councilor, City of Eugene, asked when telecommunications would be included in the maps and texts of  the public facilities and planned expansion.

 

Heinkel responded they considered that at the beginning but there wasn’t enough interest in including telecommunications.

 

Jim Croteau, City of Eugene, stated the whole approach to periodic review had been to do what the state required, but not anything extra.  He added since telecommunications was not part of the public facility plan, it was not included.

 

Nathanson stated that telecommunications is becoming an essential utility, and should  become part of the planning document.

 

Weeldreyer concurred with Nathanson.

 

Betty Taylor, Councilor, City of Eugene, suggested they plan for the use of facilities and not spread them out. 

 

Bonny Bettman, Councilor, City of Eugene, regretted there was so little involvement with the public.  She said a new tactic was needed because people weren’t attending public forums.  With regard to policy G 35 (supporting subsidies for development that fulfills goals and recommendations of the Metro Plan) she said (given the scarce resources), that it might serve the communities better if they looked to more specific wording so the subsidies were directed toward high density, infill and mixed use development.  She asked to drop Goal GM Policy #2, because based on the DLCD’s recommendation, it was not consistent with Goal 14.  She said there were changes that happened after the planning commissions examined it.  She wanted a statement on limiting runoff.  She noted that in the glossary "full range" included transit, but the minimal level did not.  She explained it stated that land within the urban growth boundary might be converted from urbanizable to urban only through annexation to a city.  She noted they could be converting land to urban without any transit service because the requirement for the full range was broad.  She wanted that language strengthened.

 

On Goal 14 issues that Bettman discussed, Heinkel explained that staff had also discussed the letter from DLCD and their recommendation was to delete the policy.

 

On the G 17 policy, Bettman noted that her comments were based on testimony from George Grier.  She suggested taking out “reduces the negative effects” from increases and run off to say,  “and runoff.”

David Kelly, Councilor, City of Eugene, echoed Nathanson’s on the importance of telecommunications.  He noted that state law didn’t require that police and fire be placed in public plans either.

 

Croteau commented that there was more emphasis on the need for planned public facilities located outside of the urban growth boundary to serve development inside the urban growth boundary.  He added there were more issues with storm water due to the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act.  He noted the elected officials recently decided to not have urban reserves in separate work sessions.  He added they would come back with an official Metro Plan amendment.

 

Bobby Green, Commissioner, Lane County Board of Commissioners, asked how consistent this plan should be with TransPlan in discussing transportation and locating public facilities outside the urban growth boundary.

 

With regard to the roads, Heinkel responded they would serve people outside the urban growth boundary. She noted what was proposed is that these specific facilities (roads not included) would be located outside of the urban growth boundary exclusively to serve properties within the urban growth boundary.  She said if changes should occur to the Metro Plan that would make it inconsistent, it would be amended at that time.  She said it would be whichever document was adopted first and changed later as other things were adopted.

 

Cindy Weeldreyer, Commissioner, Lane County Board of Commissioners, asked if the changes would help or exacerbate the high cost of housing.

 

Heinkel stated the intention of the Public Facilities and Services Plan is to provide services in the most efficient manner possible.  She said planning ahead and looking to where growth would occur and planning the facilities accomplishes that.  She said that should reduce the impact on affordable housing.

 

Peter Sorenson, Commissioner, Lane County Board of Commissioners, asked why they didn’t expand the urban growth boundary to provide services to people within the urban growth boundary.  He asked about creating a new policy for facilities near the urban growth boundary.  He said they don’t help people outside the urban growth boundary.

 

Heinkel responded it was a policy shift due to a change in state law that occurred while the study took place.  She said this allowed local jurisdictions to locate facilities outside the urban growth boundary.  She noted there was a policy proposed relating to extending services outside of the urban growth boundary that is close to the existing policy.  She said this would limit it to what it is currently, with the exception of a health hazard.  She said locating the public facilities and services outside the urban growth boundary would serve people inside the urban growth boundary exclusively.  She noted if anyone wanted to hook up to services outside the urban growth boundary, they would not be allowed to.

 

Simmons concurred with Nathanson on the telecommunications process.  He said when the process started, there was one phone company, but since then, city and county services, schools and fire stations are all linked by fiber optics.  He said to not plan for it would be a mistake and they might lose access to high-speed data.

 

Gary Pape, Councilor, City of Eugene, concurred with Nathanson and the other elected officials about including telecommunications.

 

Tammy Fitch, Councilor, City of Springfield, stated she appreciated the work that staff had done. She said that telecommunications is vital, and since this was a working document, it was ongoing.  She said this was a good solid plan.

 

Heinkel recalled that another plan, Region 2050 was underway and that could be an opportunity to discuss other facilities like telecommunications.

 

Weeldreyer noted that most utilities had GIS maps showing where their major transition lines are.  She didn’t think it would be a high-cost item to add to this.

 

Heinkel suggested coming back with a cost estimate to do a work program on telecommunications.  She noted it was not funded through the current process.

 

Mayor Torrey closed the Work Session for the City of Eugene at 6:30 p.m.

 

Commissioner Morrison recessed the meeting for the Lane County Board of Commissioners at 6:30 p.m.

 

Mayor Leiken closed the Work Session for the City of Springfield at 6:30 p.m.

 

2. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance PA 1160/In the Matter of Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to Adopt a New Public Facilities and Services Element, Planned Public Facilities Project Lists and Maps, and Related Changes to the Plan Text; Adopting a New Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan as a Refinement Plan to the Metro Plan; and Adopting a Severability Clause.

 

Commissioner Anna Morrison opened up the Public Hearing for the Lane County Board of Commissioners.

 

Mayor Jim Torrey opened up the Public Hearing for the City of Eugene.

 

Mayor Sid Leiken opened up the Public Hearing for the City of Springfield.

 

Carol Heinkel, Project Coordinator, LCOG, entered into the record two letters, one from the Eugene Water and Electric Board and the other from Oregon Communities a Voice in Annexations by Jerry Ritter.

 

George Grier, 1342½ N. 66th Street, Springfield, was concerned about the public process for siting urban facilities outside of the urban growth boundary.  He noted the focus was policy G 29.  He said siting urban facilities on resource land is new, with not a lot of processing.  He said it was appropriate to consider the siting of urban facilities on resource lands not as a director’s decision but an opportunity to have something heard before the planning commission or hearings official.  He noted the urban facilities process would have to be run through Lane County.  On storm water system improvements (page 102), he said there are a series listed for Cedar Creek and the East Springfield area.  He said that carrying capacity for Cedar Creek did not meet current build out and would not meet anticipated build out.  He said those problems needed to be addressed. He added if this was the land use decision for the projects, there wasn’t a lot that the public could provide testimony about.  He noted these involve projects on private land where the property owners had not been notified.  He said when these items come back in a more detailed form, the public has the opportunity to have public hearing. 

 

Grier said the projects that are anticipated by the policy change occurred at the legislature (HB 2865, referenced in staff notes and in responses to his previous testimony.)  There were several attempts at the legislature to address the potential to site urban facilities on resource lands and the version that was passed wasn’t clear.   He stated the language said that a utility facility was necessary for public service but it wasn’t clear whether an urban storm water detention or treatment facility would be allowed.  He added there was an application for a build out in an area adjacent to a floodplain and the developer proposed storm water detention and treatment offsite.

 

Grier explained if this wasn’t discussed, an application would come to Lane County where it is the director’s decision (and discretionary use) and could be approved without a public hearing.  He said these facilities are sited in the floodplain, agricultural or forestland and they could impact the way people live.  He said there are serious issues that affect people who live adjacent to the urban area. He said it would be a good opportunity for the people in the neighborhood to interface with the design process so any unanticipated consequences could be mitigated.  He asked for a public hearing when an urban facility is to be sited on rural resource land.

 

There being no one else signed up to speak; Mayor Torrey closed the Public Hearing for the City of Eugene.

 

Simmons said that Grier raised a question about siting a project that benefits people in and outside the urban growth boundary.  He asked if the language precluded the siting of that facility in that process.

 

Greg Mott, Planning Department, City of Springfield, responded that the city as an applicant for a land use approval goes through whatever the County requires for land outside their jurisdiction.  He noted the County has property zoned and Lane Code specifies the process.  He said Grier’s comments were well taken.  Mott added he wasn’t aware that the scope of the description of the projects in Cedar Creek was limited.  He noted there was nothing in the plan that specified that the plan would dictate what process of review would occur for the facilities outside of the urban growth boundary.  He said they assumed state law would specify whether the use would be permitted and the County code would identify the process of citizen involvement or review that occurs.

 

Simmons noted they would be adopting a plan that everyone would be agreeing to but only the County holds the requirements for a public hearing.  He said Grier’s questions were valid, because some entities may be treated dissimilarly.  He said there might be an issue where a school couldn’t be built but a sludge facility could be put on agricultural land.  He asked if it were a “use it or lose it theory” once the plan was adopted.

 

Mott said they would be making a policy decision incorporating a law indicating certain urban facilities outside urban growth boundaries could provide service to people within  urban growth boundaries.  He noted it had not been available in the past.  He said that certain urban activities had always been allowed on resource land through a review process, but it had never been specific.  He said the action they would be taking establishes the Public Facilities and Services Plan as a document that embodies policy.

 

Kent Howe, Land Management, noted that any new proposed sites or substantial changes in locations to identify public facilities in the public facility plan would require amendments to the plan and a public hearing process.  He said the concern is that there would not be a public hearing for the location of urban facilities that would occur outside the urban growth boundary.  He said a new proposed site (or substantial change in the location of an existing site) that is in the plan, required a public hearing to change those locations or identify new sites.  He added once a site is identified, the laws applicable in the jurisdiction where the site was located would determine whether or not it met the requirements for the actual siting of the utility facility located outside the urban growth boundary.

 

Celia Barry, Land Management, explained that this plan is a public facilities plan and they were concerned about having private development included in a review process.  She added that under current state and local law, public facility siting outside the urban growth boundary requires a special use permit from the County.  She said there are two levels of special use permits, a hearings official and a planning director level.  She added that both require notice, opportunity to comment and opportunity to appeal.  She noted, under policy level G 29 (page 20), the appropriate county land use approval must be obtained to site the facilities outside of the urban growth boundaries.  She said the rule regarding public facilities states that the following is not a public facility: a system provided solely for the collection, transfer and/or disposal of storm water runoff. 

 

Kelly asked that before this was adopted, if the commissioners should consider some modifications to the Lane Code so facilities proposed to be located outside the urban growth boundary get appropriate notice of a hearing.  He recommended the commissioners examine current Lane Code to see if it provides enough awareness to property owners.

 

On G 3 (allowance for modifications from the project list), Bettman asked if minor changes could go through without any amendment.  Also, if it were determined by planning staff that it was a minor change, then the plan would not have to be amended.

 

Heinkel responded that staff could investigate the possibility of defining a minor change and providing options for the elected officials.

 

On G 3, Rayor asked about public projects that were not included in the public facility and service project maps (in which unanticipated funding had been obtained), and if there should be a plan update.

 

Heinkel responded that staff agreed with the objection that Grier raised and the addendum the planning commissions forwarded deletes that portion.  She noted that Exhibit 3 contained three addenda, adding storm water projects in the River Road area. She said that addendum 2 clarified some projects related to electrical facilities and addendum 3 was in response to Grier’s testimony before the planning commissions.  She added the first recommended change was to G 3, to delete a specification regarding amending.

 

Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council at 7:05 p.m.

 

Mayor Leiken closed the Public Hearing and adjourned the meeting at 7:05 p.m.

 

Commissioner Morrison closed the Public Hearing at 7:05 p.m.

 

MOTION: to approve the Second Reading and Setting a Third Reading and Deliberation for May 30, 2001 for Ordinance PA 1160.

 

Weeldreyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-0.

 

Commissioner Morrison adjourned the meeting for the Lane County Board of Commissioners at 7:05 p.m.

 

 

Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary