Laserfiche WebLink
autonomy with amendments inside city limits and established home city and <br />county responsibilities for amendments between the city limits and the UGB. <br />Howe recalled in 2007, HB3337 was passed to provide additional autonomy <br />requiring Eugene and Springfield to adopt their own separate UGB. He indicated <br />that the Lane County Board of Commissioners is now interested in achieving a <br />level of autonomy from the cities for the rural lands outside the cities UGB and <br />outside the cities' purview of providing urban services. He recalled that the JEO <br />directed staff to explore these concepts during the implementation of HB 3337 <br />and last year Lane County initiated the proposal in front of the JEO. <br />Alicia Hanson, city of Eugene, gave a presentation of the Metro Plan Amendment <br />Review process. (Copy in file). <br />Keir Miller, Land Management, distributed a supplemental memorandum from <br />staff (copy in file) and a two sided color diagram. He noted the supplemental <br />memorandum has attached to it a revised ordinance that if adopted would amend <br />the Metro Plan Boundary. He explained that the reason there is a revised <br />ordinance is that as a requirement of the Metro Plan, Chapter 4, Policy 7, each <br />jurisdiction participating in a Metro Plan Boundary Amendment must adopt <br />substantively identical ordinances affecting the change. He noted that city staff <br />reviewed the ordinance that Lane County came up with and they had some minor <br />modifications. He noted the ordinance was reviewed by Legal Counsel from each <br />of the cities and they have each developed a substantively identical ordinance that <br />would implement the change. He also distributed a decision tree diagram <br />regarding policy choices during deliberations. (Copy in file). <br />Miller explained the issue the County is seeking is one of equity. He said since <br />the early 90's the cities have exercised full jurisdictional autonomy over land use <br />matters that fall within their city limits. He said Lane County is a decision maker <br />in the land use actions that occur within their city limits, but this is not <br />reciprocated on County land. He indicated that the city can be a decision maker <br />on certain plan amendments outside of the UGB on rural lands. He noted the <br />cities have decision - making powers that the County doesn't and that is the root of <br />the proposal. He indicated that Chapter 4, Policy7 in the Metro Plan requires any <br />proposed amendments to the Metro Plan be jointly approved by the County and <br />the partner city or cities, otherwise the amendment is referred to the Metropolitan <br />Policy Committee for study, possible conflict resolution and recommendations <br />back to the governing body. <br />Miller indicated that they are doing the amendment in two phases. He indicated <br />the first phase deals east of Interstate 5 in the area outside of the Springfield UGB. <br />He noted that Springfield is ahead in their HB3337 work program and they have <br />identified their parcel specific UGB. He said Lane County is proposing to amend <br />the Metro Plan boundaries so it is co- terminus with the new parcel specific UGB <br />that has been developed by the city of Springfield. He commented that no other <br />3 <br />