CC Minutes - 01/12/09 Work Session

Home Browse Search

jurisdiction veto because the MPC bylaws required an affirmative vote by each jurisdiction in order for something to pass. The County felt that presented a barrier to land use decision-making resolution. Ms. Gardner reminded the council that House Bill 3337 required Eugene and Springfield to conduct comprehensive lands assessments in order to establish separate UGBs. She said the County had raised the possibility that the Metro Plan amendments necessitated by HB 3337 could present an opportunity for the County’s goals to be considered. Ms. Piercy clarified that the two items for initial discussion by the JEO from the County’s list were selected because it was felt they presented the best opportunity for moving forward quickly and establishing a positive working relationship among jurisdictions, not because they had any greater priority than the other issues. She said commis- sioners seemed particularly interested in the issue of representation of County residents and recognition of the services the County provided. Mr. Clark agreed that the County was concerned about representation of County residents and he shared that concern. He had voted to limit the City’s annexation policies with respect to residents who did not wish to be annexed, especially in the northern part of the City. He asked if there was an interest in looking at whether the Metro Plan was even necessary. Ms. Gardner said there was a land use framework for the Metro Plan and the two UGBs that would result from HB 3337 compliance could produce two comprehensive plans instead of a single metropolitan plan. She noted that even if there were two plans, other regional relationships, such as wastewater, would remain and those would need to be codified in some form. She said Eugene, Springfield and Lane County planning directors had discussed the need to identify all of the issues before making any decisions. She said not all of the County’s concerns related to land use and those should be part of a separate discussion of things such as financing strategies. Mr. Clark asked for staff’s interpretation of the County’s basic public safety obligations under State law as there appeared to be differing opinions among residents and commissioners. Ms. Taylor recollected that at a previous JEO meeting a majority of those present were in favor of eliminating the Metro Plan. She asked if the poor condition of County roads was considered when the City annexed land. Ms. Gardner said that question could be better answered by Public Works staff. Ms. Taylor asked who had jurisdiction over land that was within the Metro Plan boundary, but outside the UGB. Ms. Gardner explained that was County land, but the City had a role in land use decisions involving that land if a Metro Plan amendment was involved, such as the Delta Sand and Gravel example. She said the City’s concerns when participating in those land use decisions were to maintain a 20-year supply of buildable lands, efficient delivery of services and future development patterns. Mr. Ruiz said staff could research any of the council’s specific questions and provide additional information. Mr. Zelenka indicated he was not clear what problem the County was trying to address. He noted that the issue of public safety special districts for funding purposes was an issue that had been frequently raised by the County. He asked what the original rationale had been for allowing cities to participate in land use decisions involving land outside their UBG. Ms. Gardner said the purpose was to allow cities to have some influence over development patterns as they related to the supply of buildable lands and growth management. Mr. Zelenka remarked that he did not want to relinquish the City’s role in those land use decisions or modify the current conflict resolution rules. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 12, 2009 Page 3 Work Session