EXHIBITS Page 187 <br />Mr. Jaworski asked how administrative rules or operating agreements could override the code <br />language stating that an amendment was denied if there was no recommendation within six months. <br />Ms. Burke replied that the Eugene City Council did not object to the proposed conflict resolution <br />process, but had made clear its desire to have the mayor check in with the council before taking any <br />course of action or making a decision. She said the council's operating agreements would be updated <br />to assure that happened. <br />Mr. Jaworski was not certain the request for a check in by the mayor fully addressed the concern <br />expressed by Mr. Barofsky. <br />Mr. Goodwin said the Springfield City Council had a similar discussion about the proposed conflict <br />resolution procedures and had expressed full confidence that the mayor would represent the views of <br />the body as a whole, whether or not the mayor held the same view. He said the council supported the <br />timeline for action so that conflict resolution did not become an interminable process. <br />Mr. Hledik asked if there were options for appeal if an amendment was determined to be denied if <br />there was no action within six months. Mr. Goodwin replied that an appeal could be made and the six <br />month termination date was necessary in order to establish a denial and allow for an appeal to be <br />made. <br />Mr. Peterson said there was recourse to a pocket veto; the matter could be taken to the Land Use <br />Board of Appeals (LUBA) for resolution. Conflict resolution was LUBA's task and he felt the six- <br />month period language should be left in the proposed amendments. <br />Mr. James said both Eugene and Springfield could establish operating agreements and although that <br />was beyond the purview of planning commissions, the commissions' recommendation could include <br />advice to have those agreements in place. <br />Mr. James and Mr. Randall determined there were no further comments or questions from Eugene and <br />Springfield planning commission members. <br />Mr. Sisson suggested that the Lane County Planning Commission allow the Eugene and Springfield <br />commissions to take action and then capture those actions in its own motions. <br />Mr. Nelson, seconded by Mr. Vohs, moved to recommend approval to the <br />Springfield City Council the amendments to the Springfield Development <br />Code Section 5.14-100 implementing adopted changes to the Metro Plan <br />Chapter IV. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. <br />Mr. Jaworski, seconded by Mr. Mills, moved to recommend approval to the <br />Eugene City Council the amendments to Eugene Code 9.0500, 9.7055, <br />9.7702, 9.750. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. <br />Mr. Sisson determined there were no further comments or questions from Lane County Planning <br />Commission members. <br />Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Peterson, moved to recommend to the Lane <br />County Board of Commissioners that it adopt Ordinance No. 14-15. The <br />motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 750 <br />