HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2: Metro Plan Work Plan Report
JEO
OINT LECTED FFICIALS
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Metro Plan Work Plan Report
Meeting Date: June 17, 2010 Agenda Item Number: 2
Contact: Greg Mott, Lisa Gardner, Kent Howe
BACKGROUND
On June 1, 2009 the Joint Elected Officials (JEO) directed staff from Eugene, Springfield and
Lane County to develop a Metro Plan work plan, including timeline, cost estimates and
implications for specific changes to the Metro Plan as recommended by the JEO subcommittee.
The JEO recommendation stated that changes to the Metro Plan should address:
a.Overarching policies that identify and address regional issues.
b.Policies that allow for individual refinement plans for Eugene and Springfield to address
jurisdiction-specific issues.
c.Adjustments to the Metro Plan boundary and text to address jurisdictional specific issues
arising in the urbanizable areas and the area outside the urban growth boundary.
d.A dispute resolution process that reflects the changes described in a-c.
ISSUE STATEMENT
Springfield, Lane County and Eugene are about 80% complete with conceptual/draft language
proposals amending the Metro Plan and addressing the JEO recommendations listed above. As
the HB 3337 and JEO recommendations work has progressed, it has become apparent (as noted
by DLCD testimony in the record of the Springfield-Lane County planning commission hearing)
that additional Metro Plan text conforming language amendments will be necessary in order to
comprehensively address the changes brought about by separate urban growth boundaries for
each city. Evaluation of the extent of potential conforming language amendments has revealed a
third layer of necessary Metro Plan amendments: housekeeping edits prompted by previous
legislation (i.e.. abolishment of the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission).
Staff is working to coordinate this work, which includes:
?
Clarifying the implications of the overlap of JEO recommendations, HB 3337
conforming language and housekeeping edits;
?
Determining timing of adoption of the HB 3337 amendments by the two cities and co-
adoption by the county, JEO recommendation-related amendments by all three
jurisdictions; and review and adoption of the housekeeping edits.
Staff intends to provide an overall plan that addresses these issues to the JEO at their September
30, 2010, meeting.
Page 1
ATTACHMENTS
A.Work Plan from December 9, 2009, JEO packet
B.Metro Plan Work Plan Issues Diagram
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Greg Mott
Telephone: 726-3774
Staff E-Mail: gmott@ci.springfield.or.us
Staff Contact: Lisa Gardner
Telephone: 682-5208
Staff E-Mail: lisa.a.gardner@ci.eugene.or.us
Staff Contact: Kent Howe
Telephone: 682-3734
Staff E-Mail: Kent.Howe@co.lane.or.us
Page 2
ATTACHMENT A
Metro Plan Work Plan Overview
November 2009
1. Regional Issue Definition of Key Urban Services
2. General approach to
Remove inconsistencies in Metro Plan text
resolve issue
3. Applicable Metro Plan Chapter II, Fundamental Principles and Growth Management Policy
Chapter(s) and Framework
?
Section(s)
Section A, Fundamental Principles (#2 and 6)
?
Section C, Growth Management Goals (#1-2), Findings (#10-11)
and Policies (#1, 3, 8-9, 12-13, 1-16 and 18-21); also Objective
#11
?
Section E, Urban and Urbanizable Land
?
Section F, River Road and Santa Clara Goals, Findings (#2),
Objectives (#2-4) and Policies (#4)
?
Section G, Metro Plan Diagram
Chapter III, Specific Elements
?
Section G, Public Facilities and Services (Goals and Findings)
Chapter IV, Metro Plan Review, Amendments and Refinements
?
Goal
?
Findings (#1-2), Objectives (#1) and Policies (#1)
Chapter V, Glossary (Definition #24)
Timeline November to December 2009
Cost Estimate
No additional resources are anticipated to complete the Metro Plan Update. Tasks in this work plan are
embedded within existing projects and activities, and will be undertaken with existing staff resources.
Page 3
1. Regional Issue Jurisdictional Autonomy
2. General approach to
Implement HB 3337 and revise Metro Plan boundary
resolve issue
3. Applicable Metro Plan Preface
?
Chapter(s), Section(s)
Metro Plan Updates
?
Periodic Review
Chapter I, Introduction
?
Background
?
Purpose (#11)
?
Metro Plan Contents (Fundamental Principles; Metro Plan Review,
Amendments and Refinements; Appendices B-D; Use of the Metro
Plan; Relationship to Other Plans, Policies and Reports; and
General Assumptions and Findings)
Chapter II, Fundamental Principles and Growth Management Policy
Framework
?
Section A. Fundamental Principles (#2-4, 6-7)
?
Section C, Growth Management Goals, Findings (#3, 6 and 8) and
Policies (#1-3, 5, 7-8, 15-21, 24 -25, 28 and 32); also Objectives
#6-7
?
Section D, Jurisdictional Responsibility
?
Section E, Urban and Urbanizable Land
?
Section F, River Road and Santa Clara Goals, Findings,
Objectives and Policies
?
Section G, Metro Plan Diagram
Ch III, Specific Elements
?
Section A. Residential Land Use and Housing Element
?
Section B. Economic Element
?
Section C. Environmental Resources Element
?
Section D. Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors, and
Waterways Element
?
Section E. Environmental Design Element (Policy #E.3)
?
Section F. Transportation Element (note: impacted by RTSP
[state] and RTP [federal] updates)
?
Section G. Public Facilities and Services Element
?
Section H. Parks and Recreation Facilities Element
?
Section J. Energy Element [note: references to “metropolitan area”
will need to be updated/reviewed if definition changes]
?
K. Citizen Involvement (Goals, Findings #10, Objectives and
Policies #K.4-6)
Ch IV, Metro Plan Review, Amendments and Refinements
Ch V, Glossary
Timeline January to April 2011
Page 4
1. Regional Issue Urban Transition Agreements
2. General approach to
Develop administrative process to address citizen concerns.
resolve issue
3. Applicable Metro Plan Chapter I, Introduction
?
Chapter(s), Section(s)
Background
?
Purpose (#3-5)
?
Metro Plan Contents (Relationship to Other Plans)
Chapter II, Fundamental Principles and Growth Management Policy
Framework
?
Section B. Metropolitan Goals (Growth Management #1-3)
?
Section C, Growth Management Goals (#1-3), Findings (#6-7 and
10-11) and Policies (#4, 11,18-19 and 31); also Objective #11
[note: entire Section may need review and updating]
?
Section D, Jurisdictional Responsibility
?
Section E, Urban and Urbanizable Land
?
Section F, River Road and Santa Clara Goals, Findings,
Objectives and Policies
?
Section G, Metro Plan Diagram, Land Use Designation (Urban
Growth Boundary, Metro Plan Plan Boundary)
Chapter III, Specific Elements:
?
Section C. Environmental Resources Element
?
Section E. Environmental Design Element Findings (#2)
?
Section G. Public Facilities and Services Element
?
Section K. Citizen Involvement Goals, Findings, Objectives and
Policies
Chapter IV, Metro Plan Review, Amendments and Refinements
Chapter V, Glossary (#2, 43, 54 and 56)
Timeline January to December 2010
Page 5
1. Regional Issue Dispute Resolution
2. General approach to
Work with jurisdictions to revise process.
resolve issue
3. Applicable Metro Plan Chapter I, Introduction (Purpose #7)
Chapter(s), Section(s)
Chapter II, Fundamental Principles and Growth Management Policy
Framework
?
Section B. Metropolitan Goals (Metro Plan Review, Amendments
and Refinements #1)
Chapter III, Specific Elements:
?
Section K. Citizen Involvement Element Findings (#9-10),
Objectives and Policies (#K.4)
Chapter IV, Metro Plan Review, Amendments and Refinements
Timeline January to December 2010
Page 6
1. County Issue [new] Farmland and Open Space Protection
2. General approach to
Begin the process to preserve farmland and open space within the county.
resolve issue
3. Applicable Metro Plan Chapter I, Introduction
?
Chapter(s), Section(s)
Metro Plan Contents (Appendices C-D), Relationship to Other
Plans (Relationship to Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan)
Chapter II, Fundamental Principles and Growth Management Policy
Framework
?
Section A. Fundamental Principles (#2-3)
?
Section B Metropolitan Goals (Growth Management #1-3 and
Environmental Resource #1-2))
?
Section C, Growth Management Goals (#1-3), Findings (#2) and
Policies; also Objectives
?
Section E, Urban and Urbanizable Land
?
Section F, River Road and Santa Clara Goals, Findings,
Objectives and Policies
?
Section G, Metro Plan Diagram
Ch III, Specific Elements:
?
Section A. Residential Land Use and Housing Element
(Residential Land Supply and Demand Finding #11-12, Policy
#A.2; Residential Density Policy #A.10; Design and Mixed Use
Policy #A.24)
?
Section C. Environmental Resources Element
?
Section D. Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors, and
Waterways Element
?
Section E. Environmental Design Element Goal #2; Findings (#4-
6), Objectives (#5) and Policies (#E.2)
?
Section H. Parks and Recreation Facilities Element
Timeline December 2009 to July 2010
Page 7
ATTACHMENT B
METRO PLAN WORK PLAN ISSUES DIAGRAM May 18, 2010
Springfield, Lane County and Eugene staff are 80% complete with conceptual/draft language proposals amending the Metro Plan and addressing the JEO recommendations (Box I).
Staff is asking the JEO to support amendments to the Metro Plan that include the JEO recommendations, HB 3337 conforming language and housekeeping edits, all of which are
necessary but cannot be accomplished independent of the other as noted below.
WORK TASKS ADOPTION OF METRO PLAN AMENDMENTS
I.
JEO RECOMMENDATIONS:
a.Overarching policies that identify and address
regional issues.
b.Policies that allow for individual refinement plans for
Eugene and Springfield to address jurisdiction
Adoption/co-adoption of amendments
by EUGENE, SPRINGFIELD and
specific issues.
LANE COUNTY
c.Adjustments to the Metro Plan boundary and text to
address jurisdictional issues arising in the
urbanizable area and the area outside the urban
growth boundary.
A dispute resolution process that reflects the
d.
changes described in a – c.
e.
HB 3337 implementation:
?
Springfield HB 3337: SPRINGFIELD and
LANE COUNTY co-adopt (no Eugene)
II.
Eugene HB 3337: EUGENE and LANE
?
FINAL METRO PLAN
COUNTY co-adopt (no Springfield)
HB 3337 implementation and conforming language
REVISIONS
Conforming language:
Adoption/co-adoption of amendments by
?
EUGENE, SPRINGFIELD and LANE
COUNTY
III.
Adoption/co-adoption of amendments
HOUSEKEEPING EDITS (i.e., Lane County Local
by EUGENE, SPRINGFIELD and
Government Boundary Commission, Growth
LANE COUNTY
Management)
LCOG: L:\CITY COUNTY PLANNING\METRO\JEO\JEO MTGS 2010\JEO MTG 6-17-10\JEO AIS 6-17-10_V3.DOC Last Saved: June 10, 2010
Page 8