EXHIBITS Page 185 <br />Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Jaworski, moved to approve the amendments in <br />Attachment A, but remove the maps in Attachments C and D. The motion <br />passed unanimously, 5:0. <br />Mr. Sisson determined there were no further deliberations from Lane County Planning Commission <br />members and called for a motion. <br />Mr. Thorp, seconded by Mr. Peterson, moved the Lane County Planning <br />Commission recommend to the Lane County Board of Commissioners that it <br />adopt the proposed Ordinance PA 1313, excluding Exhibits B and C. The <br />motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br />2. Amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan "Metro Plan" <br />Allowing for the Adoption of City-Specific Comprehensive Plans and Policies. <br />Mr. James opened the public hearing for the Springfield Planning Commission. <br />Mr. Sisson opened the public hearing for the Lane County Planning Commission. <br />Mr. Randall opened the public hearing for the Eugene Planning Commission. <br />Mr. Miller said the purpose of the hearing was to consider and make recommendations on a package <br />of code amendments to the Springfield, Eugene and Lane County building codes. He said ORS <br />197.175 required each county and city in Oregon to develop a comprehensive plan and enact land use <br />regulations to implement that plan. He said the amendments would codify previous amendments to <br />Chapter IV of the Metro Plan and lay the groundwork to move away from the Metro Plan and allow <br />Eugene and Springfield to develop their own comprehensive plans and establish independent UGBs. <br />Mr. Miller pointed out that the Metro Plan required each of the jurisdictions to adopt substantively <br />identical language. He said the materials in each commission's agenda packet might look somewhat <br />different in format, but the content had been reviewed by staff and legal counsel and determined to be <br />substantively identical. He briefly reviewed the four main components of the proposed amendments: <br />• Removal of references to regional impact <br />• Revised conflict resolution procedures: failure to reach unanimous agreement on a Metro Plan <br />amendment would no longer be referred to the Metropolitan Policy Committee for resolution; <br />the matter would now be referred to the Lane County Board of Commissioners and the <br />mayor(s) of the city or cities involved for conflict resolution <br />• Aligned the type of Metro Plan amendment (I, II, or III) with the corresponding number of <br />jurisdictions involved <br />• Revised the amendment process for UGBs or boundary amendments to the Metro Plan <br />Mr. Miller said staff findings of consistency with Statewide Planning Goals were included in the <br />agenda materials. He clarified that the Eugene Planning Commission would be making <br />recommendation regarding the Eugene Code that was applicable inside the city limits; the Springfield <br />Planning Commission would be making recommendations regarding the Springfield Code that was <br />applicable within the city limits and within the Urban Transition Area within the UGB; and Lane <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 748 <br />