Item B: Preparation for JEO Meeting

Home Browse Search

create regional districts or that fundamentally changed Eugene’s methods for providing key urban services to its residents. With the emergence of this regional dialogue requested by the County, this may provide an opportunity for the current City Council to have discussions on these items and ask questions for future decisions. The Metro Plan, which is, by law, a land use document, is not currently well structured to address the rapidly evolving and complex issues of local government financing of urban services. There are likely many options available on how this topic could be approached. Preferred solutions that are not consistent with existing Metro Plan text could be presented in time for the next comprehensive Metro Plan update. Topic 2: Jurisdictional Autonomy The Metro Plan prescribes the basic process for amending the Metro Plan. Depending on the nature of the request, amendments to the Metro Plan can require action by one, two or all three jurisdictions. The two primary types of amendments that are possible are: ? Diagram Amendments: These typically involve amendments to the land use designation for a specific property. The Delta Sand and Gravel request is a recent example, which required action by Lane County and Eugene. ? Text Amendments: These actions typically involve amendments to broad policies affecting a wide spectrum of the Metro Plan area. The recent I-5 bridge project is an example which required action by all three jurisdictions to amend the Metro Plan text. The primary issue identified under this topic is the role of cities in decision-making outside of the urban growth boundary. Under the current provisions, amendments involving property outside the UGB but within the Metro Plan boundaries require action by Lane County as well as the adjacent city (Eugene or Springfield). The policy question framed by the County for discussion at the JEO meeting is whether changes should be made to provide greater autonomy to Lane County, specifically in decision-making outside of the city’s UGB. The staff memorandum from Lane County suggests the following two possible means to provide the County with greater autonomy in that geographic area: 1)Amend the Metro Plan boundaries to be co-terminus with the UGB. The intended result of this proposal would be that land use decisions outside, but adjacent to the UGB, would no longer be governed by the Metro Plan and therefore, would be under the sole jurisdiction of Lane County. This change would also require text changes to the Metro Plan and the cities’ and county’s land use codes. The County’s memorandum suggests that this task could be accomplished as a part of the cities’ comprehensive land assessment efforts being undertaken in response to HB 3337. The full impacts of this option have not been fully analyzed, but several potential issues have been identified for preliminary consideration: ? HB 3337 analysis of land supply should be completed prior to consideration of boundary changes; ? HB 3337 scope of work establishes separate UGBs for Springfield and Eugene, but does not necessarily require an amendment to the Metro Plan boundaries. ? While timing of the amendments would need to be considered, “bundling” of Metro Plan amendments is a process efficiency strategy that should be considered whenever feasible. Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090112\S090112B.DOC