EXHIBITS Page 186 <br />County was required to co-adopt the amendments and the Planning Commission would be making <br />recommendations regarding Lane Code Chapter XII. <br />In response to a question from Mr. Peterson, Mr. Miller said the changes reflected in the proposed <br />amendments had already been approved at the policy level; the amendments would codify those <br />changes. <br />Mr. James determined that there was no one wishing to testify. <br />Mr. Moe, seconded by Mr. Kirschenmann, moved to close the public hearing <br />and record for the Springfield Planning Commission. The motion passed <br />unanimously, 5:0. <br />Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Jaworski, moved to close the public hearing <br />and the record for the Eugene Planning Commission. The motion passed <br />unanimously, 5:0. <br />Mr. Peterson, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved to close the public hearing and <br />the record for the Lane County Planning Commission. The motion passed <br />unanimously, 8:0. <br />Mr. Barofsky drew commissioners' attention to the code amendment language relating to conflict <br />resolution. He expressed concern with the language that considered a plan amendment to be denied if <br />there was no recommendation back to the governing bodies within six months of the referral of the <br />disputed matter to the chair of the Lane County Board of Commissions and the mayor of the involved <br />jurisdiction. He cautioned that could result in a pocket veto if the mayor or chair failed to act, even <br />though the majority on their commission or council might have an opposing opinion. He said Eugene <br />staff had indicated there would be administrative rules and operating agreements that would prevent <br />that from occurring in the city, but it was important that the other jurisdictions be aware of the issue <br />and have operating agreements in place to avoid a pocket veto of a Metro Plan amendment. <br />Mr. Peterson said there should be three parties involved in resolution of a conflict between two of the <br />parties <br />Mr. Randall commented that Mr. Barofsky was suggesting that each jurisdiction should assure that its <br />governing body had procedures and operating agreements in place that would prevent a pocket veto <br />thwarting the will of the majority. <br />Mr. Barofsky reiterated that his primary concern was the addition of language establishing a timeframe <br />of six months, after which an amendment was deemed to be denied if no recommendation was <br />forthcoming. <br />Mr. Thorp pointed out that the City of Eugene had a mayor elected by the public, while the chair of the <br />Lane County Board of Commissioners was elected by the other commissioners. He felt the political <br />dynamics were different and it was unlikely the commission's chair would thwart the majority's will. <br />Mr. Miller said a set of conflict resolution procedures, similar to those now used by the MPC, could be <br />recommended to the Board of Commissioners to alleviate concerns. <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 749 <br />