My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 1: Metro Subcommittee Report
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2009
>
CC Agenda - 06/01/09 Joint Elected Officials Meeting
>
Item 1: Metro Subcommittee Report
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:16:07 PM
Creation date
5/29/2009 10:56:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
6/1/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
be able to rely on that anymore because new comp plans supersede that. At this point, the <br />jurisdictions are not even sure where to begin with the legal framework. <br />Lisa Gardner stated that Periodic Review is triggered by the separate comp plan <br />approach. Those comp plans would be individually funded; wouldn’t be pooling <br />resources as before. DLCD resources would also be going to three different jurisdictions <br />rather than one combined effort. <br />Commissioner Stewart added that there is the perception that the jurisdictions are already <br />doing Periodic Review. He clarified that he understood this is not so—had been done as <br />one entity but could be doing three times with separate plans. <br />Lisa added that there are new DLCD rules that are not completely clear. The jurisdictions <br />would be at the mercy of DLCD when developing new work plans. She explained that the <br />jurisdictions would be subject to any new requirements related to Periodic Review that <br />are now applicable. <br />Commissioner Handy stated that it is stressful to prioritize and respond to DLCD <br />requirements, and it is complex to carve out and frame relationships. <br />Commissioner Stewart stated that he understands state acknowledgement of a comp plan <br />is necessary. He said his colleagues believe that the county often approves city requests <br />but when the county goes to the cities, this is not reciprocated. This builds tensions when <br />the jurisdictions meet. <br />Councilor Lundberg noted that because of the positions we are in—representing different <br />constituents—we need and want autonomy. It is okay to agree to disagree. For example, <br />land use and transportation is not just a single definition/statement that everyone agrees <br />on. She added that revisions would require agreements by all jurisdictions. She also <br />stated that autonomy should be at the top. If this was in a revised Metro Plan, that would <br />look better. Consider taking out the option of all three jurisdictions approving something <br />such as UGBs. <br />Greg added that the state requires cities and the county to co-adopt UGBs. The local set- <br />up is for the three jurisdictions to do that although there is nothing in state law that <br />requires that. In 1994, the jurisdictions updated the Metro Plan so that any changes within <br />the city limits are exclusive to the respective jurisdiction. Outside the UGB, county <br />initiates and city participates. He added that the Board and jurisdictions could change or <br />update this. <br />Kent added that as he understood it, Councilor Lundberg’s assumption was that in a <br />revised Metro Plan, there wouldn’t be jurisdictional autonomy. With HB 3337, the cities <br />will be “disjointed,” but will always be connected to the county. <br />Greg stated that there would be refinement plans for east and west of I-5, adopted by <br />Lane County and Springfield, and Lane County and Eugene. Anything included with <br />JEO Subcommittee Meeting page 3 5/7/2009 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.