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
respect to policies will be between the county and city. What will remain in the Metro <br />Plan are fundamental, universal policies not affected by HB 3337. <br />Kent stated that he supports the recognition of the regional importance of the Metro Plan <br />because of its framework for regional issues—MWMC, TransPlan, etc. <br />Lisa asked what percentage of the Metro Plan knits us together? She noted that the <br />jurisdictions haven’t addressed the legal implications of disassembling the Metro Plan. <br />Councilor Clark noted that the unintended consequences could be long and challenging. <br />He asked what would happen if there is a dispute between the county and city on the <br />UGB? <br />Greg added that the structure of MPC would need to be addressed. Both are required by <br />law to adopt and then go to the commission for approval. If can’t get there, not sure what <br />happens. <br />Kent added that HB 3337 requires inventories to be complete. Will need to meet statute. <br />Councilor Clark asked about the implications of the Safe Harbor population numbers. <br />Commissioner Stewart added that if cities do a UGB split, and the facts justify the <br />numbers but the county says no, do the cities have any recourse? <br />Greg responded that he was not sure what would happen. There is no precedent. Usually <br />it is not city or county who disagrees but advocacy groups or those party to changes. <br />Commissioner Handy added that one jurisdiction has asked for an extension already. No <br />extension on determination piece because mandated by statute. <br />Betsy noted that regarding the current Metro Plan diagram, are those proposals listed to <br />address the five county issues acceptable/good direction? For example, dispute <br />resolution. <br />Commissioner Stewart responded that MPC doesn’t address dispute resolution. <br />Councilor Lundberg stated that there are very different philosophies. If have to change <br />policies in the Metro Plan, won’t likely come to agreement because different <br />philosophies. <br />Commissioner Stewart noted that it is not practical to not have a Metro Plan. For <br />example, there was a big effort to get rid of the Boundary Commission but now without <br />it, it is worse for the cities than before. He advises fixing the small problems and getting <br />autonomy without doing away with the Metro Plan. <br />JEO Subcommittee Meeting page 4 5/7/2009 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.