Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br />Memo Date: <br />December 19, 2008 <br />JEO Meeting Date: <br />January 13, 2009 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />TO:JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS OF THE EUGENE/ <br /> <br /> SPRINGFIELD METRO PLAN <br />PRESENTED BY: <br /> Kent Howe, Planning Director <br /> Lane County Land Management Division <br />AGENDA ITEM TITLE: <br /> Joint Elected Officials Discussion on Metro Plan <br />Revisions to Address Issues Identified by the Lane <br />County Board of Commissioners <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />I. PROPOSED MOTIONS: <br /> <br />No motion is necessary. This is a discussion item only. <br /> <br />II. ISSUE OR PROBLEM <br />This memorandum is a follow-up to the discussions of the Mayors and Chair of <br />st <br />the Board on December 1 regarding possible Metro Plan amendments that <br />could be considered and implemented to address concerns with the Metro Plan <br />and the Urban Transition Agreements that have been identified by the Board of <br />County Commissioners. These amendment concepts have been developed by <br />County staff as an alternative to the termination of the metro-area Urban <br />Transition Agreements. <br />Staff is seeking general direction and input from the Joint Elected Officials <br />(“JEO”) as we begin development of specific Metro Plan Amendment revisions <br />and materials to address the first two of five Lane County issues, as discussed at <br />st <br />the December 1 Mayors and Chair meeting. Staff will continue to coordinate <br />with the cities the development and inclusion of specific text revision proposals <br />into the Metro Plan amendment efforts currently underway, as appropriate. <br /> <br />III. DISCUSSION <br /> <br />A. BACKGROUND <br />The Eugene/Springfield Metro Area General Plan (the Metro Plan) serves as a <br />joint management agreement between Lane County and the cities of Eugene and <br />Springfield in matters of long-range planning and policy guidance. For several <br />years, the Board of County Commissioners have recognized and attempted to <br />address identified issues within the Metro Plan relating to: <br />1. Annexation policies; <br />2. The ambiguous and conflicting plan language related to urban services; <br />3. Perceived citizen disenfranchisement (stemming from the delegation of <br />building and land use code administration to the cities within the UGB); <br /> 1 <br /> <br />