JEO 131204 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

November 4, 2013 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield City of Eugene Lane County Page 2 of 7 • Three types of Metro Plan amendments are established: Type I which may be enacted by the home city alone; Type II which requires the participation of the home city and Lane County; and Type III amendments requires the participation of all three jurisdictions. • The proposed amendments remove references to Metro Plan amendments with "regional impact." Removal of the regional impact language does not change similar language found in Chapter VI of the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP) which provides for multi jurisdictional review of public facility projects which have a significant impact on serving more than one jurisdiction. • When governing bodies do not reach consensus on a Metro Plan amendment, the proposed amendments would send unresolved decisions to the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners and one or both of the Mayors of Eugene and Springfield for resolution, depending on how many governing bodies are participating in the decision. The Springfield Planning Commission conducted a joint public hearing on the Chapter N amendments with Eugene and Lane County on October 15, 2013. Each of the Commissions voted to recommend approval of the amendments with certain recommended changes. These changes were incorporated in to the Proposed Chapter IV Amendments. Staff noted, with respect to the recommendation to include timelines, that: (1) there was no statutory timeline for comprehensive plan amendments; (2) a timeframe might unnecessarily restrict the process of the decision makers; and (3) there was really no enforcement mechanism for the existing timelines. Eugene staff had not recommended the inclusion of such timelines. Council was being presented two draft ordinances for consideration: one including the timeline language and one without. It may be necessary to reconcile the two ordinances before final action. Mayor Piercy said she would like to point out that each jurisdiction had three documents they were working on for this topic, although each had commonalities. Mr. Metzger said on October 15, the respective Planning Commissions met and considered the same changes. Each Planning Commission met individually, deliberated and made recommendations to their staffs and elected officials about the changes they would like to see in the draft document. Staff took most of the recommended changes and integrated them into the draft ordinances being presented. One key change staff did not initially put in related to timelines for processing Metro Plan amendments. Staff had recommended removing references to timelines from Chapter IV. The Planning Commissions from Eugene and Springfield recommended restoring some form of timelines. Two ordinances were put together for Springfield: one with the timelines and one without timelines. He read the two sentences that made the difference. During tonight's work session, they hoped to come to an agreement about whether or not to reference timelines in the Chapter IV amendments. Other than that one difference, the ordinances were substantively identical. Mayor Lundberg noted that Springfield was the only entity with two ordinances on the table. It was noted that the Eugene packet was printed before the revised ordinance from Springfield was complete. Staff had provided both options at their places this evening. Eugene's original packet had the pre - Planning Commission version due to Charter requirements for noticing.