Laserfiche WebLink
with the Donna Robinson property. He said she is hamstrung by some of the <br />policies in the Metro Plan that currently exist and adoption of this proposal would <br />address her concerns. He noted the big issue that came up during the joint <br />Planning Commission Public Hearing process was a concern over the Springfield <br />Utility Board’s drinking water. He said in the process of moving the boundary, <br />Lane County would be the sole decision maker on those types of land use issues. <br />He indicated that the criteria and zoning is the same, it is about who makes the <br />decision on the land use change. <br /> <br />Miller reported that four potential options came out of the Planning Commission <br />Public Hearing to deal with the Springfield Utility Board’s issue. He said the first <br />option would be to move the plan boundary as proposed except leaving out the <br />large area. He added that the second option would be to move the boundary but <br />have Lane County adopt some type of drinking water protection plan like <br />Springfield has in place that would address Springfield’s drinking water concerns. <br />He indicated the third option is to move the plan boundary and develop an <br />intergovernmental agreement between the County and the city that would enable <br />the city to be a decision maker on certain types of actions they feel would impact <br />the ground water. He added there is also a no alternative option to address the <br />Springfield issue. He reported that the Lane County Planning Commission voted <br />7-2 to deny the proposal. He said they unanimously voted to amend the maps to <br />show Springfield’s parcel specific UGB, a requirement of state law. He said the <br />Eugene Planning Commission voted 3-2 to support the amendment and the <br />Springfield Planning Commission voted 4-2 to support the amendment with the <br />understanding that the County and the city enter into some type of agreement to <br />address the Springfield Utility Board’s concerns. He said if they agree on <br />changing the plan boundary, the Rural Comprehensive Plan Amendments item 2 <br />through 6 need to happen if a plan boundary has changed. He said if consensus is <br />not reached, what would need to occur is for no action to be taken on the Rural <br />Comp Plan amendments. He said they could direct staff to implement an <br />ordinance to adopt Springfield’s parcel specific UGB or they could direct staff to <br /> <br />modify the proposals. <br /> <br />A. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE NO. PA 1281/In <br />the Matter of Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan <br />(Metro Plan) by Adopting a New Metro Plan Boundary that is Coterminous with <br />the City of Springfield Urban Growth Boundary East of Interstate 5; and <br />Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses. <br /> <br /> SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE NO. PA 1283/In <br />the Matter of Amending the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan by Applying <br />Plan Designations to Lands Removed from the Metro Plan Pursuant to <br />ORDINANCE NO. PA 1281; Adopting the City of Springfield Parcel Specific <br />UGB Boundary on official Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan Maps to <br />Comply with OAR 660-024-0020(2) and Adopting Savings and Severability <br />Clauses. <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br /> <br />