JEO 131204 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

November 4, 2013 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield City of Eugene Lane County Page 3 of 7 Mr. Miller said the updated packet in front of the Eugene City Council showed the recommendation from the Eugene Planning Commission which did not include the timelines. Mayor Lundberg said before going into the public hearing, it would be beneficial to have only one version of the ordinance. Mr. Metzger said that was the goal. In the existing Development Code, the criteria was for the three jurisdictions to adopt a substantively identical ordinance for a Metro Plan amendment to be approved. Other than the section of the timelines, the rest of the ordinance was the same. Staff hoped that at the end of the work session and public hearing, they would have an identical ordinance for adoption. Doing this would prepare the way to move forward on other things. Chapter IV described the amendment process for the Metro Plan, Refinement Plan, Functional Plans, and other important regional and community documents. The changes proposed this evening would not affect the Public Services and Facilities Plan as it had its own chapter on how to amend that particular document. Mr. Metzger said they were moving from a difficult classification system for types of plan amendments which just included Types I and II, to a system with Type I, II and III. Type I would allow one jurisdiction to make a decision alone, Type II would require two jurisdictions to make a decision and Type III would require all three jurisdictions to make a decision. The new classification was more of a common sense approach. The proposal was that all three governing bodies would approve amendments to the common urban growth boundary (UGB) that was shared along I -5, or for a UGB or Metro Plan Boundary that crossed I -5. The home city and Lane County would participate in UGB or Plan boundary amendments east of I -5 (Springfield) or west of I -5 (Eugene). He explained further. He referred to a map showing the three areas that were within each city's limits, outside city limits and UGBs, and within Metro Plan boundary. The different areas determined in part who would be involved in the decision making process. Mr. Metzger spoke regarding amendments to a regional transportation system plan or a regional public facilities plan and the criteria for those amendments and who would be involved. He provided an example. The first step would be to classify the type of amendment, then move forward in the decision making process. He discussed `regional impact' and said there was language in the Public Facilities Plan that covered water, wastewater, sewer and other basic utilities, and protection of services. As an example, there could be an instance where something in Springfield might have an impact on stormwater facilities that also served Eugene. In that type of instance, the amendment would be subject to joint review by Eugene, Springfield and Lane County. He spoke regarding conflict resolution. In the current language, if there was a conflict within the decision making process the conflict would be taken to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). The proposal was to change the language so the Mayors and Board Chair would work together to try to resolve disputes. If there was no consensus, the Mayors and Board Chair would meet with staff to work out the solution. Commissioner Farr asked if there had been a conflict. Board Chair Leiken said the last conflict was regarding Delta Sand and Gravel. In that situation, Springfield did choose to opt out leaving it to just Eugene and Lane County. Conflicts were not commonplace.