Item 6: Ordinance on Chapter 2 Amendments: PC Bylaws

Home Browse Search

ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Action: An Ordinance Concerning the Planning Commission; and Amending Sections 2.013, 2.330, 2.332, 2.335, 2.345, 2.350, and 2.355 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Meeting Date: June 9, 2008 Agenda Item Number: 6 Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Steve Nystrom www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541/682-8385 ISSUE STATEMENT The City Council will take action on an ordinance amending Chapter 2 regarding the Planning Commission Bylaws. BACKGROUND The City Council held a public hearing on the proposed ordinance on May 19, 2008. There was no public testimony provided, however, the City Council identified the following potential revisions which they directed staff to bring back for consideration: Maintain the existing code provision which requires the Planning Commission to review the ? Capital Improvement Program. Revise the language in EC 2.335 to clarify that the “secretary” of the Planning Commission is ? the Planning Director or his/her designee. Eliminate the two ex officio positions and replace them with two voting members, increasing the ? voting membership of the planning commission from seven to nine. Staff has prepared the appropriate motions to address the three potential changes, which are included as Attachment B. With regard to the third motion, staff has outlined the following factors for the council to consider regarding the proposed increase in the voting membership of the Planning Commission: As a comparison, the vast majority of cities in Oregon have seven-member planning ? commissions. This size generally provides a good balance of representation and ability to operate with efficiency. Given the volume and depth of issues on the Eugene Planning Commission agendas, as well as the frequent need to coordinate availability for hearings and deliberations on land use applications, this is an important factor to consider. Adding two voting members may increase the current challenge to fill vacant positions. Over the ? last several years, the council has generally had a very limited pool of applicants for each vacant Planning Commission position. For example, last year, the City had to repost to find any qualified candidates for one vacancy. Based on these factors, additional discussion on this proposed amendment to the ordinance would be helpful, including input from the Planning Commission. To accommodate input from the Planning Commission, the council could table this specific motion until the next joint City Council/Planning Commission work session, or provide an opportunity for the Planning Commission to submit written comments on the proposed changes to their recommended bylaw amendments. Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080609\S0806096.doc