Laserfiche WebLink
November 4, 2013 <br />Joint Elected Officials Meeting <br />City of Springfield <br />City of Eugene <br />Lane County <br />Page 4 of 7 <br />Mr. Metzger said the intent was to simplify conflict resolution and put it in the hands of the parties <br />directly involved. He spoke regarding timelines and the current language which had a timeline, and the <br />new language that did not have timelines. The Eugene and Springfield Planning Commissions <br />recommended restoring some timeline language. Eugene had removed the timeline language from <br />their ordinance and Springfield had added it back into the ordinance. Before the public hearing, that <br />needed to be resolved so they were coming forward with a common ordinance. <br />Councilor Ralston said he understood the timeline aspect. Without a timeline, something could go on <br />indefinitely. Developers needed some certainty so that was a good reason for having it in there. <br />Councilor Brown asked why staff had chosen originally to remove the timelines. <br />Mr. Metzger said there was no statutory requirement for timelines as there were for other planning <br />processes. In those other planning processes, the developer did have the right to know. In the context <br />of Comprehensive Plan amendments, the State had left it open. Timeframes might unnecessarily <br />restrict the ability of the cities and elected officials to process things thoroughly. Many of the <br />legislative plan amendments initiated over the last several years had gone beyond six months. <br />Sometimes, it was unavoidable due to scheduling the jurisdictions to meet. Currently, there was no <br />enforcement mechanism regarding the timelines in the Metro Plan. <br />Councilor Brown said it made sense (not to have timelines) especially when they had complex <br />changes which could take longer than six months in order to do a good job. <br />Mr. Metzger said they would not remove the 120 days developers needed to get a decision and move <br />ahead on projects. <br />Councilor Brew said in some land use decisions, there were consequences for not making a decision in <br />a timely manner. He asked if there were consequences in this situation. <br />Mr. Metzger said there were no consequences in the current Metro Plan language for these type of <br />amendments. There was no statutory step to enforce a timeline since there was no requirement for a <br />timeline. When a community made a policy, they tried to keep those timelines in good faith. If the <br />Councils and Commissions were committed to act in good faith and doing the job right, there was no <br />need for a timeline. <br />Councilor Brew asked if including timelines in the Metro Plan could open it up for legal action. <br />Mr. Metzger said in the current development codes, there was permission to modify the timeline or <br />process by agreement of the participating jurisdictions. In the future, if they saw they weren't going to <br />meet a certain timeline, they could meet as joint officials to modify the timeline. They would not <br />likely be exposed legally. <br />Mr. Miller said because there was no State provision, there was no grounds of legal action so it was <br />not likely an issue. Each jurisdiction had land use codes that included language specific to the timeline <br />waivers for government issued plan amendments only, but not for citizen initiated amendments. One <br />of the reasons the Lane County Planning Commission didn't recommend the timelines was that the <br />majority of Metro Plan amendments were initiated by the jurisdictions. <br />