Laserfiche WebLink
March 3, 2009 <br />Joint Elected Officials Meeting <br />City of Springfield <br />City of Eugene <br />Lane County <br />Page 2 of 11 <br /> <br />There were five metro areas in the State of Oregon: 1) Eugene/Springfield Metro Area; 2) Portland Metro <br />Area; 3) Salem; 4) Bend; and 5) Medford. Lane County had the rural comprehensive plan which applied <br />outside the metro plan boundary and outside the urban growth boundaries of the other 10 small cities in <br />the County. The jurisdiction of Lane County was all the lands outside of city limits and the Lane County <br />Rural Comprehensive Plan outside the urban growth boundary and Metro Plan boundary. <br /> <br />Mr. Howe said there had been formal planning efforts in this area since 1945, with the formation of the <br />Central Lane Planning Commission. In 1959, the Central Lane Planning Commission developed the first <br />development plan for Eugene and Springfield. The 1972 to 1990 plan was adopted. In 1973, Senate Bill <br />100 passed requiring the Comprehensive Plan and in 1982 the Eugene/Springfield Metro Plan was <br />adopted, followed shortly after with the County’s adoption of their rural plan. The Metro Plan had gone <br />through a couple of periodic reviews since then. In 2007, HB3337 required separation of the urban growth <br />boundary (UGB). <br /> <br />Mr. Howe said citizens inside city limits were represented by their respective City Council. Citizens in the <br />area within the Metro Plan UGB were represented by the Lane County Board of Commissioners. Land <br />available inside the UGB’s had been available for development to try to prevent development outside the <br />UGB. At this time a single UGB existed, but with HB3337, each city would have its own UGB and <br />separate inventories. <br /> <br />Springfield Planning Manager, Greg Mott, said the underlying premise for everything in the Metro Plan <br />came from the fundamental principles in Chapter 1 of the Metro Plan. He summarized those principles. <br />Even though the Metro Plan was designed to provide a twenty-year time horizon for growth and <br />development change to occur, it also needed to remain a timely document. The State required an update <br />every once in awhile. Each community could also develop refinement plans for neighborhood planning. <br />The Plan diagram was a graphic representation of the goals and objectives of the Plan. The policies in the <br />Plan, in Chapter 3, were the things used to make decisions regarding development. Although it seemed <br />that some of the policies in the Metro Plan conflicted with each other, that was part of the balancing act <br />that was inherent to the comprehensive planning process. <br /> <br />Mr. Mott said the current Metro Plan was in its third iteration and it was now on the verge of a fourth <br />amendment. He explained the effect of HB3337 and that each City would have their own UGB. Each city <br />would be responsible for all actions that occurred inside each UGB, such as land inventory and provision <br />of services, as well as preparing a Local Transportation Plan in order for the land use inventories to be <br />developed. Another affect was the abolishment of the Lane County Boundary Commission, who had been <br />the authority for annexation for the two cities. Now each city was responsible for their annexation <br />procedures. Something else that tied in with this was the Little Look process that was done at the State <br />level. He further discussed how each city would be obligated to comply with State land use laws within <br />our UGBs, and relying on Metro Plan policies to establish that they were consistent with State goals. <br />Where there was a conflict, the Metro Plan needed to be amended. Currently, the Metro Plan didn’t <br />included two separate boundaries. <br /> <br />Mr. Mott discussed service provision in relation to public safety and libraries. The Metro Plan as it was <br />now hindered standing services through service districts, as it relied on the cities as the service providers. <br />There was no law that prohibited that, but had been left in the Plan. Another element from HB3337 was <br />that each city needed to have their own population forecast to comply with the law and that we determine <br />we have a twenty-year inventory of land. He pointed out that we did not currently have rural reserves in <br /> <br />