2012-02-23 JEO Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JEO OINT LECTED FFICIALS AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Metro Planning Update Meeting Date: February 23, 2012 Agenda Item Number: 3 Contact: Greg Mott, Lisa Gardner, Kent Howe SUMMARY Eugene and Springfield have been working extensively to implement HB3337, legislation that requires two separate UGBs. Both cities have presented to their respective city councils and planning commissions on their progress, as well as to their neighboring jurisdiction and Lane County. In addition, Lane County has been working through regional issues that are of importance to the county. It is extremely hard to project when these respective projects will be complete, adopted and acknowledged since the initiatives are staggered in their timing. Consequently, it is difficult to anticipate what a revised Metro Plan or regional planning framework will look like and when it will be developed/finalized. The jurisdictions have purposefully refrained from addressing any inconsistencies (often called housekeeping amendments) in the Metro Plan or refinement plans such as the Public Facilities and Services Plan until these aforementioned projects are complete. Regional framework/revised Metro Plan and housekeeping amendments will be completed at the same time and post-completion of Envision Eugene, Springfield 2030 and Lane County regional issues so that they can be done once rather than a more resource- intensive multiple times. Jurisdiction-specific information provided below: Springfield 2030: Springfield is currently gathering more information about the UGB expansion areas reviewed and recommended by the Springfield and Lane County planning commissions before scheduling with the Council and Board. Springfield is also reviewing proposed code language that will implement new policies of Springfield 2030 for compliance with statutory requirements for clear and object standards. Springfield is preparing an amendment to Metro Plan Chapter IV clarifying and re-describing the classification of Metro Plan amendments; which of the governing bodies participate; and a new conflict resolution process. this project addresses the conflict resolution process difficulties raised by Lane County several years ago; is responsive to the new requirements of ORS 197.304 (HB3337) regarding separate UGBs; and completes some housekeeping matters involving the triggers or metrics of regional impact. UGB expansion is considered so that the purpose of ORS 197.304 is observed consistently Envision Eugene: Eugene continues to refine land need numbers for industrial, commercial, and residential land, in preparation for a UGB proposal to be presented by the City Manager to the City Council in March. Six community forums are in the planning stages for March and April, and Council will hold a public hearing in April as well. In May, the Council will have the opportunity to act on the recommended UGB, along with implementation strategies. The formal Page 1