Ordinance No. 20437 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORS 197.304(1) which says that "Notwithstanding an intergovernmental agreement ... or acknowledged comprehensive plan provisions to the contrary," the cities of Eugene and Springfield shall both: (a) establish separate 20 year urban growth boundaries, and (b) demonstrate that their separate boundaries provide sufficient buildable residential lands for the next 20 years as required by ORS 197.296 (a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planninE eoals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission As a preface to this section of the staff report it is useful to provide some context to what is being proposed in this amendment; why the only amendment being sought is a new population forecast for each city; and how this action will establish part of the necessary basis for future significant changes to the Metro Plan. Both cities know they have considerable work ahead of them as they undertake compliance with ORS 197.304. As the Back rg ound and Discussion sections in this report have already demonstrated, the new law that is the cause of this work is a significant departure from the laws and agreements that have bound the two cities and county together since the original acknowledgment process and two subsequent periodic reviews. There is no case law that provides guidance or defines nuance; there is no administrative rule that says how you interpret this law; and there is no precedent elsewhere to use as a model for this action. Eugene and Springfield have a single metro -wide UGB; they will soon have separate municipal UGBs. Eugene and Springfield have shared a single metro -wide buildable lands inventory because of the single UGB; they will soon have separate buildable lands inventories contained within their separate UGBs. Eugene and Springfield have shared a single metro - wide population and employment forecast because they've shared a single UGB and single buildable lands inventory; now they must begin this compliance process by adopting separate population forecasts into a comprehensive plan that still recognizes the current single, shared UGB and a single, shared buildable lands inventory. Will all references to a single population, a single UGB and a single buildable lands inventory be amended in this action? No. The proposed amendment is intended to start a lengthy process of Metro Plan amendments involving the creation of separate UGBs and separate inventories. All of those changes cannot be predicted; they must be based on compliance with the goals. That cannot occur in the absence of the facts necessary to support the changes. The fast step in that process (as explained previously) is adopting a new population forecast; the proposed amendment says we are undertaking this action to achieve timely compliance with the statutory obligations of the law. Timely compliance is a reference to the deadline imposed by our statutory obligations but also is meant to convey that we recognize the extent of this obligation and are beginning with the first step. Inserting the new coordinated forecasts and explanatory text on the first page on the first page of the first chapter of the Metro Plan provides the proper context for understanding how it relates to the rest of the Metro Plan. What might otherwise be seen as a conflict with different population figures and related findings elsewhere in the Plan is resolved by the explicit requirements of the 2007 statute and by the context and language of the amendment. In short: The new forecasts implement that statute. They address a new 20 -year