Laserfiche WebLink
November 4, 2013 <br />Joint Elected Officials Meeting <br />City of Springfield <br />City of Eugene <br />Lane County <br />Page 5 of 7 <br />Board Chair Leiken said that explained it well. Today, they were looking to amend Chapter IV, which <br />was not site specific. If looking at an amendment that was site specific, it would fall under the code <br />section of 120 days. He recommended they leave out the timelines. Because the cities and County <br />were required to follow SB 100, it was impossible to meet a timeline for certain actions. If each city <br />wanted to have them, they would need to create a separate Comp Plan. Timelines would cause more <br />harm in the short term for these types of amendments. Anything that had to go through the <br />Department of Land and Conservation Development (DLCD) would not get done within a timeline. <br />Mr. Metzger said there could be amendments that could be site specific. He explained. In those cases, <br />they could be processed in a timeline. Legislative amendments generally took more time. <br />Councilor Poling asked if there was any thought of adding language about a mutually agreed upon <br />extension of those dates for complex issues. <br />Mr. Metzger referred to the wording being proposed. There was policy in each jurisdiction's <br />development code that allowed timelines or processes to be modified for government initiated <br />amendments. <br />Councilor Pryor said there were potentially two problems. The first was that a timeline could be too <br />short because of the complexity. The other problem was an amendment that went into limbo and never <br />got resolved. The more likely problem was that the amendments couldn't get done in time rather than <br />things going into limbo. Instead of having a timeline to prevent that, they could include language that <br />staff would get back to the elected bodies to provide a status report. He would prefer removing the <br />timelines, but including language for a check -back. <br />Councilor Syrett said she felt that any Metro Plan amendment initiated by the jurisdiction wouldn't go <br />into limbo as they would like to see it completed. With three jurisdictions working on something, it <br />could extend for a long time and having a timeline could help move things along; however, since they <br />were separating those things out it wasn't as much of an issue. She would worry more about keeping <br />in timelines that weren't required and had no enforcement mechanism. That could provide an <br />opportunity for confusion and interference in a process that served no purpose. She liked the idea of a <br />check -in process, but not a strict timeline. <br />Mr. Goodwin said with government initiated amendments, there would always be a government <br />initiator who would be more than happy to continue to progress to an agreement by keeping in touch <br />with the other parties involved. <br />Councilor Moore asked if there was anything in the agreement that said the jurisdictions would work <br />together in good faith. She could see one jurisdiction wanting something to go forward and another <br />that didn't and holding up the process. <br />Mr. Metzger said there was nothing in the Plan at this time, but language could be added that "Metro <br />Plan amendments would be processed by each jurisdiction in good faith ". <br />Councilor Moore said that could be helpful for future elected bodies. <br />