My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Ordinance No. 19989
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Ordinances
>
1990s No. 19660-20183
>
Ordinance No. 19989
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/10/2010 3:48:13 PM
Creation date
11/21/2008 2:50:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Ordinances
CMO_Document_Number
19989
Document_Title
Concerning Metro Plan amendments; amending sections 9.015, 9.120, 9.124, 9.126, 9.128, 9.130, 9.132, 9.134, & 9.136 of the Eugene Code, 1971; adding new sections 9.118 & 9.119 to that code; & repealing section 9.122 of that code.
Adopted_Date
11/9/1994
Approved Date
11/9/1994
CMO_Effective_Date
12/10/1994
Signer
Ruth Bascom
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
5. The proposed revisions to Chapter IV were reviewed by the three <br />metropolitan planning commissions at a joint hearing on September 29,1992. <br />6. In February 1993, the elected officials of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County <br />held another joint public hearing on revisions to the Metro Plan amendment <br />process. <br />Gn March 1, 1993, following the joint public hearing by the elected officials <br />of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County, the Eugene City Council adopted <br />revisions to the Metro Plan amendment process. The Lane County Board of <br />Commissioners also adopted the amendments. The Springfield City Council <br />rejected the proposed revisions and submitted an alternative amendment <br />process for consideration. As a result, the item was forwarded to the <br />Metropolitan Policy Committee MPC} far conflict resolution. <br />7. In January 1994, MPC forwarded three options far completing the conflict <br />resolution process to the elected officials. The City Council was polled and <br />a majority favored incorporating the issue into Periodic Review. As refined <br />by MPC, this option included the establishment of a special committee of <br />representatives from each jurisdiction to prepare a consensus recommendation <br />to the elected officials. <br />S. The City Council approved this approach in April 1994 and Councilors Boles <br />and Nathanson represented Eugene on the committee. The Resolution <br />Committee was chaired by Councilor Bales, with staff support from the Lane <br />Council of Governments and the planning directors. The Committee met <br />during June 1994 and completed a recommendation at their June 2$, 1994 <br />meeting. <br />9. As recommended by the Resolution Group, the amendment process <br />distinguishes between Type I amendments, which are non-site specific text <br />amendments, UGBIPIan Boundary changes or other goal exceptions; and Type <br />II amendments, which include plan diagram and site specific text amendments. <br />10. Under Type I amendments, adoption by all three jurisdictions is required for <br />any non-site specific text amendment and for any UGB or Plan Boundary <br />change crossing the VL~illamette or McKenzie River or crossing over a ridge <br />into a new basin, or involving a goal exception not related to a UGB <br />expansion. For other Type I amendments, the amendment will be reviewed <br />against a set of criteria to determine if , it has regional impact. If the City <br />Council of the non-home city resolves that the amendment has regional <br />impact, adoption by all three jurisdictions is required; if not, only the home <br />city and county must adopt the amendment. <br />Exhibit A - 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.