09/03/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Smith asked Mr. Greenleaf to expand on the mediation process. ~. Greenleaf stated that all three jurisdictions would have to agree that . that was the technique to be used. All versions would be presented, and the mediator would present which versions are acceptable under the State- wide goals. This would be given back to the jurisdictions as advisory opinions. Ms. Smith asked if there are other plans having such disagree- ments. Mr. Greenleaf responded that there are not. Of 65 mid-Willamette Valley jurisdictions, 61 have been submitted. Mr. Lieuallen arrived at the meeting. Ms. Smith asked if the mediation process could take longer than 120 days. Mr. Greenleaf responded that it could, recognizing that this is a major metropolitan area. In response to Mr. Lieuallen's question about the City's concurrence with Lane County's version of the plan, or theirs with ours, Mr. Greenleaf responded that it could be done either way. Mr. Lieuallen asked what the process would be if we were to agree with the County and then object. Mr. Greenleaf responded that the commission would normally handle these themselves and try to review the actions as soon as possible. They are, however, on a six-week commission meeting schedule due to budget constraints and may need to rely on subcommittee review. Mr. Lieuallen expressed concern that this type of mediation could be risky for the City. Mr. Greenleaf resoonded that the local jurisdictions could reach an agreement on an interim policy until the mediation process was completed. Ms. Miller asked if the City's plan is on the October agenda. Mr. Green- e leaf responded that it is not but that a status report would probably be given at that time. It would not be complete b~cause Lane County has not yet submitted their version of the plan. It could be placed on the March agenda for a complete review of the plan if the County submits soon. Ms. Miller asked if staff reports would be available prior to the meeting. Mr. Greenleaf stated that they would be available at least two weeks prior. Ms. Miller asked how long the process would take if first reviewed in March. ~. Greenleaf responded that the review is usually done in one meeting. Ms. Miller asked if there will be a staff recommendation at the time of review. Mr. Greenleaf responded that there would be if the parties agree to an urban growth boundary. Mr. Greenleaf, clarifying the situation, said that the review would take place in March if a complete submission is received soon. If nothing happens in October, they would look at proceeding with an enforcement action. Ms. Schue expressed curiosity about the mediation process. She asked if there is any responsibility or requirement that jurisdictions accept the mediation report. Mr. Greenleaf responded that some jurisdictions have agreed ahead of time to accept the mediation as a compromise but this would be a voluntary agreement. Ms. Schue asked what would happen if the mediation were not successful. Mr. Greenleaf responded that it would lengthen the time as review would not occur until July or later and eliminate an option. Ms. Schue asked if reconcilation must occur before the review can be held. Mr. Greenleaf responded that that was accurate. e 9/3/80--7