Ordinance No. 19988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5. The proposed revisions tv Chapter 1V were reviewed by the three metropolitan planning commissions at a joint hearing an September 29,1992. G. 1n February 1993, the elected officials of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County held another joint public hearing an revisions to the Metro Plan amendment process. an March 1, 1993, fallowing the joint public hearing by the elected officials of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County, the Eugene City Council adopted revisions to the Metro Plan amendment process, The Lane County Board of Commissioners also adopted the amendments. The Springfield City Council rejected the proposed revisions and submitted an alternative amendment process for consideration. As a result, the item was forwarded to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC} far conflict resolution. 7. In January 1994, MPC forwarded three options for completing the conflict resolution process to the elected officials. The City Council was polled and a majority favored incorporating the issue into Periodic Review. As refined by MPC, this option included the establishment of a special committee of representatives from each jurisdiction to prepare a consensus recommendation to the elected officials. S. The City Council approved this approach in April 1994 and Councilors Boles and Nathanson represented Eugene on the committee. The Resolution Committee was chaired by Councilor Boles, with staff support from the Lane Council of Governments and the planning directors. The Committee met during June 1994 and completed a recommendation at their June 28, 1994 meeting. 9. As recommended by the Resolution Group, the amendment process distinguishes between Type I amendments, which are non-site specific text amendments, UGB1Plan Boundary changes or other goal exceptions; and Type 1I amendments, which include plan diagram and site specific text amendments. 14. Under Type 1 amendments, adoption by all three jurisdictions is required for any non-site specific text amendment and for any UGB ar Plan Boundary change crossing the Willamette ar McKenzie River or crossing over a ridge into a new basin, or involving a goal exception not related to a UGB expansion. For other Type I amendments, the amendment will be reviewed against a set of criteria to determine if it has regional impact. If the City Council of the non-home city resolves that the amendment has regional impact, adoption by all three jurisdictions is required; if not, only the Name cifiy and county must adopt the amendment. Exhibit A - 2