Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Bj6rklund said the committee, whose members were Mr. Sorenson, Ms. Nathanson, and Mr. Kelly, <br />examined what was termed Board Alternative 2. The alternative was partly taken from the analysis <br />developed by Steve Gordon of Lane Council of Governments and partly taken from the council's adopted <br />amendments. The alternative was an attempt to clarify the criteria without changing the original intent of the <br />plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Bj6rklund briefly described the changes to the criteria recommended by the committee. He reminded the <br />elected officials that the criteria were intended to allow them to decide how to designate wetlands not yet <br />designated, with the exception of the Eugene Speedway, which the State directed the City to redesignate. <br /> <br />Mr. Sorenson asked Mr. Bj6rklund what would be the effect if the elected officials failed to act on the <br />amendments. Mr. Bj6rklund responded that if the amendments were not adopted in the same form by the <br />City and County, they would not go into effect, and under the law the current criteria would be retained. <br /> <br />Mr. Sorenson asked if the criteria were intended to help guide the elected officials in reaching a decision, but <br />were not binding upon the elected officials in making designations in the future. Mr. Bj6rklund said the <br />criteria were not prescriptive. They did not dictate an outcome unless there was a site that met one of the <br />standards, in which case the outcome would be predictable. Mr. Bj6rklund said that to go against the <br />standards would require a plan amendment. Mr. Sorenson asked if Mr. Bj6rklund would concur with a <br />statement that the criteria were a means to guide the elected officials toward a decision, or required them to <br />act as finders of fact who must come to a particular decision because of the criteria in the plan. Mr. <br />Bj6rklund believed that the criteria guided the elected officials but were not so prescriptive as to determine <br />the outcome of a decision. He said the elected officials would have to make findings and act consistently with <br />the criteria. However, he believed the criteria as written provided room for judgment on the part of the <br />elected officials. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted that it was not the committee's charge to redo the wetlands plan, but rather to focus on <br />criteria that would be clear and consistent with the intent of the original plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner reviewed the procedures for the public hearing. He opened the public hearing for the Eugene <br />City Council. Mr. Green opened the public hearing for the Lane Board of County Commissioners. <br /> <br />Shawn Boles, 105 North Adams Street, said that resolution on the issue under consideration was long in <br />coming and he hoped the elected officials would make a decision soon. He suggested the elected officials <br />were faced with a policy decision regarding which set of criteria maximized the protection of existing <br />wetlands. He regretted the board's failure to adopt the criteria recommended by the Lane County ane Eugene <br />planning commissions, particularly since the decision regarded a municipal concern. Mr. Boles recommended <br />to the council that if it were unable to reach agreement with the board on the criteria, it restrict the plan <br />boundaries to with inside the city limits and adopt the criteria it wished, avoiding additional and unproductive <br />costs and processes. <br />David Hauser, 2168 Elkhorn Drive, representing the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, indicated the <br />chamber's support for the revised amendments as a means of achieving the plan's objective of balancing <br />environment and development needs. Mr. Hauser noted the chamber's long-time concern about the <br />implications of the amendments on the community's ability to comply with State Land Use Goal 9, which <br />called for a supply of land for commercial and industrial uses to meet a 20-year projected demand. He <br />believed that the criteria left room for interpretation, and cited protection criterion 2 as an example; did it <br />refer to how the water flowed off a site, or did it imply a connection through a means such as a culvert? Mr. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials-- August 4, 1999 Page 2 <br /> Eugene City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners <br /> <br /> <br />