Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />In July, the joint planning commissions (Lane County, Springfield and Eugene) held the required public <br />hearing, and held a continued hearing in August. Following the close of the public hearing record, the <br />three planning commissions met jointly in October for deliberations and to provide recommendations to <br />their respective elected officials. The Lane County Planning Commission voted 7-2 to recommend <br />denial of the proposal to the Lane County Board of Commissioners. The City of Springfield voted 4-2 <br />to recommend approval to the Springfield City Council, with a condition that the Springfield and Lane <br />County enter into an agreement to address concerns about authority over Springfield’s drinking water <br />wells. The Eugene Planning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend approval of the proposal to the <br />Eugene City Council. The Eugene Planning Commissioners who supported the proposal indicated they <br />did so because it was consistent with the approval criteria, and that the current Metro Plan structure was <br />not necessary for regional planning to continue, while those who did not support the proposal cited the <br />importance of regional planning. <br /> <br />At the November 30, 2011, City Council work session on this topic, follow up information was <br />requested on two related issues. Responses are provided below. <br /> <br /> <br />1.Approximately 1,327 people live in the area on the Springfield side between the UGB and the <br />Metro Plan boundary, and approximately 882 people live in the area on the Eugene side between <br />the UGB and the Metro Plan boundary. <br /> <br /> <br />2.According to Lane County Planning Staff, all but one of Lane County’s current Planning <br />Commission members was appointed by the previous Board of Commissioners. <br /> <br />As noted above, this proposed amendment only pertains to the Springfield side. The scope and timing <br />of a future County-initiated proposal to amend the boundary on the Eugene side of the Metro Plan has <br />not been established, and will be subject to a separate public process. Lane County has acknowledged <br />that, given the different circumstances on the Eugene side, such as the location of the Eugene Airport <br />outside of Eugene’s current UGB, Lane County’s proposal for the Eugene side may not precisely follow <br />Eugene’s UGB; it may propose to leave some areas that are located outside of Eugene’s UGB within the <br />new Metro Plan boundary so the City continues to have some decision-making authority in those areas. <br />The council’s participation in Lane County’s proposal to adjust the Springfield side of the Metro Plan <br />boundary may help the Eugene City Council identify some of the issues it will eventually consider when <br />a similar proposal is made for the Eugene side. The outcome of Envision Eugene, including the location <br />of Eugene's UGB, will be a factor in more specifically identifying those issues. It is anticipated that <br />Lane County will ask Eugene to consider the proposal as part of the Envision Eugene final adoption <br />process. <br /> <br />In addition to this Metro Plan amendment, a series of related amendments to the Lane County Rural <br />Comprehensive Plan (RCP) are also being proposed. These amendments affect land outside of the <br />Metro Plan boundary. Therefore, only Lane County will need to consider these amendments. <br /> <br /> <br />RELATED CITY POLICIES <br />Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan <br /> <br />Growth Management Policies <br /> <br /> S:\CMO\2012 Council Agendas\M120313\S1203131.doc <br /> <br />