EXHIBITS Page 183 <br />purpose of the proposed amendments was to enable each city to move forward with a new approach to <br />comprehensive planning by developing independent city-specific comprehensive plans that worked in <br />conjunction with the Metro Plan and might eventually supplant it. <br />Ms. Jerome said HB 3337, passed by the legislature in 2007, mandated that Eugene and Springfield <br />establish their own separate UGBs. She said the cities were still required to engage in regional <br />planning for transportation and public facilities and there were many other areas in which regional <br />collaboration would continue. The proposed amendments were not intended to make substantive <br />changes to policy direction or designations that applied to land. They served three purposes: <br />• Revisions to enable each city to independently establish a city-specific comprehensive plan <br />with its own UGB <br />• Update and explain the status of the Metro Plan to provide users and readers with an <br />understanding of its evolving nature <br />• Revision or removal of text that no longer applied <br />Ms. Davies said it had been brought to the attention of staff that there were discrepancies in the Metro <br />Plan Diagram Map and Metro Plan Boundary map included in the proposed amendments; some land <br />designations were inconsistent with those in the officially adopted 2004 Metro Plan Diagram. She said <br />staff had confirmed there were discrepancies and recommended that the planning commissions remove <br />those maps. <br />Ms. Jerome clarified that the Eugene agenda packet contained only the proposed maps; Springfield <br />and Lane County agenda packets included both the current and proposed maps. <br />Mr. Hledik asked how annexations would be guided if the language in Metro Plan Policy 12 regarding <br />criteria for the annexation of land by Eugene or Springfield that was not contiguous to their boundaries <br />was removed. Ms. Jerome said those types of non-contiguous annexations had not been possible since <br />the Lane County Boundary Commission became defunct in 2007. The Boundary Commissions had the <br />authority to annex land that was not contiguous to city limits and when it was eliminated annexations <br />in Lane County became subject to statutory annexation laws, which did not allow annexation of land <br />that was not contiguous with city limits. <br />Mr. James explained the rules for providing testimony. <br />Bill Kloos, Oregon Land Use Law, Eugene, spoke on behalf of his client Environ-Metal Products, <br />LLC. He noted he had submitted a letter dated October 22, 2014, to the Joint Planning Commission <br />setting forth his concerns regarding the Metro Plan enabling amendments. He said the proposed Metro <br />Plan Diagram map was wrong as it was not based on adopted 2004 Metro Plan Diagram, but rather on <br />a version generated by Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) that was printed in a different manner <br />than the official version. He thanked staff for their recommendation to remove the maps. <br />Mr. Kloos expressed concerned that it was not possible to access online an accurate copy, including <br />site-specific amendments, of the official 2004 Metro Plan Diagram. He said maintaining an accurate <br />Metro Plan Diagram that was accessible to the public was a long-standing problem. <br />In response to a question from Mr. Peterson, Ms. Davies said that removing the proposed Metro Plan <br />Diagram from the proposed amendments meant that the 2004 adopted version would still be in effect. <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 746 <br />