Laserfiche WebLink
growth boundary. (UGB) He added there was a dispute resolution process that <br />reflects the changes. <br />Howe reported that in 2011 the Board of Commissioners initiated the application <br />before the JEO. He said this Work Session is to provide details regarding the <br />Lane County initiated Metro Plan Boundary Amendments. <br />Howe indicated that the three jurisdictions are continuing to work on updating and <br />amending the Metro Plan to reflect the June 2009 JEO subcommittee <br />recommendations. He reported that Eugene and Springfield have been working <br />extensively to implement H133337, the legislation requiring two separate urban <br />growth boundaries. He added that Lane County has been working through <br />regional issues that are of importance to the County. He noted that Springfield is <br />gathering more information about the UGB expansion areas reviewed and <br />recommended by the Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions and <br />Springfield and Lane County are preparing amendments to the Metro Plan <br />Chapter 4 clarifying and re- describing the classification of Metro Plan <br />Amendments. He reported that Eugene is unveiling its results from the Envision <br />Eugene process in preparation for a UGB proposal this spring. He added that <br />these are all a part of the June 2009 subcommittee recommendations of which it <br />states that the jurisdictions shall work on adjustments to the Metro Plan Boundary <br />and text to address jurisdictional specific issues arising in the urbanizable areas <br />and the area outside of the UGB. He recalled that this area's first Comp Plan was <br />the 1990 Plan and it was adopted in 1968. <br />Howe recalled when the Metro Plan was submitted for acknowledgment in 1980, <br />many of the concepts and components of the 1990 plan were carried forward. He <br />added that the UGB had to be justified on the rules and statutes of the Goal 14 <br />Inventory Requirements as opposed to the aspirational concepts of the 1990 Plan. <br />He said because of the historical regional planning and the fact the County had <br />not submitted a Comprehensive Plan for the rural area, the elected officials <br />included most of the 1990 plan urban service area extremities within the Metro <br />Plan, resulting in a plan boundary unique statewide that was exterior to the UGB. <br />He added that the Metro Plan was acknowledged in 1982. He reported that Lane <br />County was not acknowledged as meeting the requirements of the statewide <br />planning program until 1984 and that year the same regulations that protect all of <br />rural Lane County were applied to the lands outside the Eugene Springfield UGB <br />inside the Metro Plan. He noted the artifact of the Metro Plan Boundary remains, <br />that it does not provide any additional regulatory protection. He reported that <br />there are rural resource lands within the boundaries of the Urban Comprehensive <br />Plan and the role of the two cities is elevated from interested parties to decision <br />makers. He explained that this unique plan allows for either city to prevent a land <br />use action proposed on Rural Resource land outside the city's UGB. He noted <br />that now Lane County implements the Statewide Planning Goal Protections to <br />resource lands outside the UGB, just as the cities of Springfield and Eugene <br />changed the amendment process in the early 90's to provide the cities with <br />2 <br />