Laserfiche WebLink
planning goals, or that the amendment would not create an inconsistency in the Metro <br /> Plan <br /> <br /> Howe indicated on February 1 there was a joint public hearing with the Planning <br /> Commissions. He added all three Planning Commissions deliberated separately and <br /> recommended approval of the proposed amendment, that it met the land use criteria for <br /> approval of the Metro Plan. He said they identified concerns that were centered on three <br /> general areas of the proposal: the "notwithstanding" exception language that is in the <br /> proposed policy; the single countywide district and the list of services that has "including <br /> <br /> some of the concerns that the Eugene and Springfield Planning Commissions had with <br /> the language. He said there was a recommendation from the Eugene Planning <br /> Commission that there be a s~ngle countywide district. He addedthe recommendation <br /> from Springfield was that in case there was a city that was not within the district, so there <br /> wouldn't be a potential Metro Plan conflict in the future; make it a single district within <br /> the County. <br /> <br /> Howe said the second alternative was:to delete the "but not limited to" language so it <br /> would read that those services are included. He noted the third alternative was instead of <br /> using the word "including", to use the words "suCh as". He noted the fourth alternative <br /> stated that "shall be" be changed to "limited to". <br /> <br /> Howe explained that tonight's meeting and public hearing is to take testimony to improve <br /> the policy amendment language ~hat Lane Cotmtyisproposlng for the purpose of <br /> providing a better financial situation for public ~safetyin Lane County. He indicated the <br /> elected officials had in their paCkets materials provided to the Planning Commissions at <br /> the February 1 public hearings, ~e staff responses to questions that they raised at the <br /> public heating, the minutes of the public hearing and the draft minutes of the three <br /> Planning Commissions' deliberations. <br /> <br /> Howe indicated themain premise is for land use. He said it is a Metro Plan policy that is <br /> being proposed to. be amended and the two criteria to be focused on is if the land use <br /> amendment is consistent with the statewide planning goals and if it would create an <br /> internal inconsistency in the Metro Plan. He noted if the elected officials find that those <br /> two are met, then the policy is worthy of being amended in the Metro Plan. <br /> <br /> Bettman commented that the need for the County is financial but the decision in the <br /> Metro Plan is land use. She said it didn't make sense to her. <br /> <br /> Howeresponded there are criteria in the Metro Plan for amending it. He said the need is <br /> something they will have to determine. He explained this was unique as the services of <br /> the district are not really metro growth inducing services. He added that the policy of the <br /> Metro Plan addresses that. He indicated the County was being cautious in making the <br /> <br />Page 2 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting April 19, 2005 <br />WD bc/m/05035/T <br /> <br /> <br />