minhead.gif (11357 bytes)

Approved 4/25/00

February 15, 2000

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' REGULAR MEETING

Commissioners' Conference Room - following HACSA

Commissioner Peter Sorenson presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Bobby Green, Sr., Anna Morrison and Cindy Weeldreyer present. County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.

1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA

Commissioners Business to be added.

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS

Lynn Burditt, Leaburg, stated she was resigning from her commitments to Lane County as she is moving out of the area. (She submitted a letter of resignation.) She said she had appreciated working with the elected officials. She encouraged the Board to stick with strategic planning and to not be discouraged if there is not much response. She added it was critical that Lane County has a vision and guidance for the County Administrator so everyone is headed in the same direction. She stated the County has made substantial gains over the last few years and staying committed will help serve the constituents in the future.

3. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660

None.

4. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION

a.  Announcements

None.

5. PUBLIC WORKS

a. SIXTH READING AND DELIBERATION Ordinance PA 1132 Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan to Adopt a Revised "Transportation Element" and Related Changes to the Plan Text; Adopting Revisions to the Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan (TransPlan); and Adopting a Severability Clause.

Tom Stinchfield, Public Works, explained that Attachment 2 (see material on file) is a memo from Tom Schwetz that outlines where the process is going with the review of the record and the eventual adoption of TransPlan. He noted that the Eugene City Council had a discussion last night as well as the City of Springfield and they are following the same sequence for review. He announced the Eugene City Council has scheduled their next work session for February 28 and Springfield’s work session is March 13. Stinchfield recommended that the next reading for the County’s ordinance and work session for the Board be on March 14. He added the LTD Board will be discussing this tomorrow at their first work session. He said there is not yet a complete response to the record, but that will be completed and available for the Board on March 14.

Stinchfield noted that with response to 1. a, the first topic, relates to what is required to adopt and implement actions. He added it contains a list of things that will be adopted in the plan, specifically: Chapter 2 (the policies), Chapter 3 the 20 year capital improvement list from the financially constrained tables, Chapter 4, the plan performance measures and interim bench marks. He added the Board will need to adopt the supporting findings and related changes in the Metro Plan text.

Sorenson asked who is legally required to adopt air quality and if LRAPA would be the agency.

Tom Schwetz, Lane Council of Governments, responded that LTD is required to have an air quality plan.

Green asked what LTD is doing in their role for air quality.

Vorhes noted that LRAPA doesn’t provide transportation services in the way the cities of Eugene and Springfield, and Lane County does. He added that LRAPA is not subject to the same planning rule requirements that the three jurisdictions are. He explained that LTD is involved because they are a key player in the community. He added the TransPlan is a transportation plan for the area and that is why LRAPA is not a part of it.

Stinchfield noted they have representatives of the LRAPA staff at their meetings when there are issues related to air quality. He said in general terms, the federal requirement requires the plan to have an air quality analysis done (with the model) that shows compliance with federal law regarding air quality. He recalled that the LRAPA staff did testify at one of the hearings and was supportive of the plan and did not have any problems with the air quality analysis that had been done.

Schwetz reported that LRAPA and LCOG at the MPC have agreements to coordinate both the analysis and data collection. He said at another level, they have an agreement with LRAPA to work on different things like the State Implementation Plan, where they are a partner.

Sorenson stated that by involving LRAPA staff, and not LRAPA as a formal organization, the risk is run that the Regional Air Pollution Authority (that has federal responsibilities) will not be bound by this document. He suggested to involve LRAPA informally.

Stinchfield noted the process to go forward with the discussion of the Friends of Eugene proposal and the adopting of the official proposal was based on the meeting they had without redrafting the plan. He said that was resolved at MPC in December and they have a process to reopen the record through March 31 and a joint work session in May. He added they are working towards resolution within a six month time frame after the joint work sessions.

Stinchfield noted that 1. c. is a review of the process to date. He said there was a question from Councilor Rayor about the process and Stinchfield replied it was just how things are going.

Stinchfield noted that 1. d. is about different things, but motorcycles are not treated differently than automobiles in the modeling. He said they don’t have technical information in the plan about motorcycles or policies that relate to them as a special mode of transportation. He said motorcycles are fundamentally different than bicycles.

Stinchfield stated that 1. e. did not require discussion.

Stinchfield noted that 1. f is about process and repeats the agreement of reaching consensus on the plan by December 2000.

Stinchfield stated that he hopes to have an additional work session with the jurisdictions to identify changes made in the plan. He said staff would prepare an analysis for the groups where there are differences.

Stinchfield said that 1 g. needed no discussion, as the plan is required to meet state and federal laws.

Stinchfield noted that 1. h. is a question from Councilor Kelly about the status of the projects in the plan. He said this is an important section to understand. He said the staff’s response is in agreement with Kelly that it is significant to put projects in the plan on the constrained project list. He added there is specific language in the Transportation Planning Rule about developing a project list that is needed to serve the land uses in the comprehensive plan. He said the project list is a basic element of the plan and Section 050 talks about what happens if a project is not built. He said it is important as to what projects are on the list, and it is recognized that a no-build option on a project will cause adjustments to be made. He added there was discussion from the Eugene City Council about what is necessary to be binding (with regard to a memo that the City of Eugene staff prepared) that discussed similar issues. He said the polices and the project lists have legal significance in land use actions. He added the future projects list does not have as much force and changes to the plan.

Vorhes noted the function of the project list, and how it is adopted, does not necessarily bind the implementing agencies into doing those projects. He added if those agencies decided not to do those projects on the list that was actually adopted, at some point analysis will have to occur to see if the TransPlan provides for the transportation needs identified in the area.

Stinchfield stated there had been discussion about putting language about a bridge study in the plan, but he is not recommending it. He said the way the plan is structured, it requires a project list and analysis and then determining how project development occurs. He said the plan notes issues that haven’t been resolved in a particular project at the project development phase.

Dwyer asked if the elected officials sign something collectively, will the signature of all parties be required to change something.

Stinchfield replied that there was discussion in Springfield about the TransPlan amendment process. He noted there are rules in place regarding TransPlan amendments and changes in policy or projects. He explained if they are to be considered regionally significant, they are required to be approved by all adopting agencies.

Gregg Mott, Planning Manager, City of Springfield, reported that the Springfield City Council discussed the issue of a mechanism for amendments once the document is adopted that is included in the draft TransPlan. He noted the existing TransPlan has an amendment process that is different than the Metro Plan amendment process. He said it was the consensus of the Springfield City Council that the adopting officials needed to talk about an amendment process for TransPlan. He reported that the council would prefer that it be similar to the existing Metro Plan amendment process.

Schwetz noted that once the plan is adopted, it will not be ignored. He said there are federal requirements to re-examine it in a periodic review every five years.

Jan Childs, City of Eugene, reported that Issue 2 is different from Issue 1 in that they have not only the response to the adopting officials’ questions, but they have an attachment to her memorandum and the response to the public testimony that was received. She stated she went through both responses to the adopting officials’ questions and the responses to the public testimony, summarizing the testimony related to each of those items.

Childs discussed the memo dated February 8, attachment 3 to the packet. She distributed the specific sections of TransPlan that are being proposed for adoption related to land use and nodal development. She said with nodal development, they are talking about adoption of amendments to the Metro Plan and the Land Use Plan. She said there is also an Appendix E to the document that is a glossary and the definition of nodal development (and of nodes in Appendix E) was not updated to reflect the changes that the planning commission made. She said eventually the definition of nodal development in Appendix E will be consistent with the definition adopted as part of the Metro Plan.

Childs noted the first suggestion that was made was to add the definition of node in addition to the definition of nodal development. She added there could be some confusion if they added a definition of node (a short general statement and then a separate definition of nodal development), that would be a longer definition. She gave a list of fundamental characteristics of nodal development. She recommended having just a definition of nodal development. She said there needs to be housing in all types of nodal development areas. She added there should be a higher proportion of residential development in commercial and employment areas than what is in the description. She said that the Eugene City Council’s vision of nodal development is an area that is internally focused, a mixture of uses within an area, so a person could live, shop and work within a single area.

Dwyer noted that real mixed use has to allow people to live and work in the same place. He said he had concerns about the area having to have inventories for industrial and commercial areas and being forced to grow. He said if there is not an adequate amount of land, rezoning has to take place. He asked when there would be control of open space and no further development.

Schwetz commented that there are areas like Chad drive that exist for the potential of a nodal development concept, bringing the benefits to those areas where a situation is created for an amount of mixed use.

Green asked how different this was from urban sprawl.

Childs responded that sprawl is low density development everywhere, but this concept tries to provide concentrations of higher intensity developments in areas that are well served by transit and that provide opportunities for people to walk and ride their bikes. She noted the focus is pedestrian oriented and accessibility by transit.

Weeldreyer’s concern with nodal development is an area that is zoned residential, with another land use. She said if it is truly a plan for the next twenty years, and if the growth of the Internet is doubling every three years, (with the forecast of electronic commerce being more conservative than what people are saying,) making provisions for home occupation codes allows people to work in their home businesses. She added it should provide incentives for people to do that. She said there should be more thought and language to have that compliment a TransPlan and the Metro Plan, addressing issues of people living and working with a technological information based type of economy.

Sorenson echoed the concerns about the future aspects of the plan. He said on nodal development, it doesn’t meet the issue of scale. He noted that 28th and Friendly had been talked about as a node because it meets the living and shopping dimension.

Childs noted a proposal for a new Metro Plan diagram designation had not yet been discussed. She said that would be a nodal development that would show on a map. She said the proposal that is recommended in the document is that the fundamental characteristics of nodal development be specified in that description of what the nodal development map designation would be. She commented if an area would be designated for nodal development, it would be a plan diagram amendment.

Stinchfield suggested the next reading take place on March 14.

MOTION: to have a Seventh Reading and Deliberation on March 14, 2000, at 9:00 a.m.

Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

VOTE: 4-0 (Green left early).

Childs summarized what the City of Eugene had discussed for nodal development. She noted that the Eugene City Council wanted to look at nodal development as part of their work session on implementation and deferring the topic. She said they went into the suggested amendments to the land use policies that were included in the draft TransPlan (second page of attachment.) She stated there was testimony on the first policy that suggested revising the description of nodal development. She said currently there is a reference to the neighborhood commercial and employment centers and the staff recommendation was to provide more of a description of nodal development as part of the policy statement. She said her attorney thought that neither was needed. She said with regard to land use policy 2, there was no testimony for changes, but there was testimony to implement the policy, but no changes to the definitions. She said for land use policy 3, there is a suggestion deleting it, but the Eugene City Council did not support deleting it. She said with policy 4, there was testimony that was received that the verb be replaced. She added the testimony that was received was to replace accommodate with encourage and the Eugene City Council recommended the change. She noted that they will be taking up nodal development and land use issues on February 28, and taking other issues in March.

Mott noted that after they finished the topic area number 3, the Springfield City Council requested a two hour work session on March 13. He added the issue of nodal development also needs to be resolved as it is a critical component of TransPlan. He said his council was concerned about the definition of nodal development that will be created in TransPlan and that it doesn’t diminish the work that had already been done with respect to the definition.

Dwyer said his concern with nodal development is on the urban growth boundary, as whatever is done will impact all the land. He asked if nodes were exclusive or if it was another way of starting development.

Mott responded that there is an expectation that if it is really a node, it has a definite configuration to it. He added the effectiveness will be based on the ability to comply with the existing policies.

Sorenson asked how many nodes would be in Springfield.

Mott responded that the map in TransPlan shows 15. He added there are a variety of different nodes and existing developments that have mimicked the nodal concept.

Mott stated his council indicated, while they believe in nodal development as a concept, they are not ready to say it will happen or be a success. He said there was discussion about the implications to the existing properties and a possible change to the land. He said they still do not know how to embrace nodal development as a reality instead of as a concept.

6. CONSENT CALENDAR

A.    Approval of Minutes:

November 3, 1999, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.

December 14, 1999, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.

January 19, 2000, Joint Elected Officials Meeting, 6:00 p.m.

Morrison presented the following changes: on the November 3 minutes, page 7, item c, the last sentence should be: "it was his recommendation." For page 10, top paragraph, 6th line down should be: "of its outcomes." For the January 19, 2000 minutes, should be: "she added in the packets."

MOTION: to approve the Consent Calendar with the corrections of the minutes.

Dwyer MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

7. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS

None.

8.    EMERGENCY BUSINESS

None.

There being no further business, Commissioner Sorenson recessed the meeting at 12:00 p.m.

Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary

go_to.gif (1155 bytes)Back to Board Notices


Contact the webmaster@co.lane.or.us Read the Lane County Liability Disclaimer and User Agreement
Updated: 11/04/05 URL:
Copyright 1997 Lane County Information Services.  All rights reserved.