Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

attachment 11 and 12 in legislative and standard format in the packets. (Copy in file). Miller indicated that Action 5 would amend Rural Comprehensive Policies to apply existing Goal 5 Metro Plan policies to Goal 5 resources removed from the Metro Plan. He said the proposed Rural Comprehensive Policy is included in Exhibits A and B to attachment 4. He noted that Action 6 would perform minor housekeeping amendments to Lane Code 16.253 to maintain existing Safe Harbor riparian setback regulations to lands removed from the Metro Plan. He indicated the changes are shown in attachment 21 in the packet. (Copy in file). He added because the Metro Plan and the Rural Comp Plan amendments are interrelated, all of the amendments will be the subject of tonight’s hearing and public testimony may be directed toward any of the proposals. Miller reported that notice of tonight’s Public Hearing was mailed out to approximately 2,600 property owners within or adjacent to the proposed boundary adjustment area and an ad announcing tonight’s hearing was published in The Register Guard. He recalled a First Reading and announcement of the Public Hearing occurred on February 21 in accordance with the requirements of the Lane Charter and a public information open house concerning the proposal was held on April 21, 2011. He noted on July 19, 2011 a joint hearing between the Eugene, Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions was opened. He added that hearing was continued to August where additional testimony was heard. He said the Planning Commissions then closed the Public Hearing and left the record open for four additional weeks to allow additional written testimony to be submitted into the record. He recalled that during the Planning Commission process, 23 comments were received on the proposals. He indicated that staff responses are reflected in the adopted minutes to the joint Planning Commission Public Hearing process and in supplemental memos to the Planning Commission. He said the minutes and supplemental memos have been included in the packet materials as attachments 15 through 20. (Copy in file). He reported on October 25, the Planning Commission deliberations on the proposal were held and the Lane County Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposal by a vote of 7-2. He added the Eugene Planning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend approval of the proposal and the Springfield Planning Commission voted 4-2 to recommend approval with a condition that Springfield and Lane County enter into an intergovernmental agreement to address concerns about Springfield’s drinking water. He stated that Lane County staff recommends approval of the Metro Plan Boundary amendment and related Rural Comprehensive Plan amendments. He added that detailed findings of facts supporting this recommendation have been provided as Exhibit E to attachment 1. (Copy in file). He said it should be noted that if deliberations begin tonight, Springfield and Eugene elected officials should limit their deliberations to the Metro Plan Boundary amendment element only. He added if consensus on the Metro Plan Boundary change is reached then the Lane County Board of Commissioners may deliberate and take action on the Rural Comp Plan specific amendments. He noted in addition to the 23 comments 10