Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> -, <br />For clarification, Mr. Delay stated that if the City chose to use media- <br />tion, and there was no agreement to accept the results, then it could be a <br />waste of money. Mr. Greenleaf stated that it could be as it is an infor- . <br />mal, non-binding process at this point. Mr. Delay asked what is the <br />mechanism if the City agreed with the County urban growth boundaries and <br />then objected. Mr. Greenleaf stated that commission mediation is not <br />binding but that enforcement action and the review are binding. Mr. De 1 ay <br />asked, in regard to contesting the urban growth boundary, if there would <br />be a binding decision. Mr. Greenleaf stated that it would not be, that <br />instructions would be sent back for the local jurisdictions to deal with. <br />Mr. Delay asked if this could be similar to a mediator and if it, too, <br />could prove to be a fruitless process. Mr. Greenleaf responded that it <br />could be. Mr. Delay asked if enforcement actions could be inhibitive to <br />geographical areas or punitive. Mr. Greenleaf responded that that is <br />correct, but that distinguishing between the two is not always easy. Mr. <br />Delay stated that he would presume that if actions were punitive, more <br />substantial findings must be made; that is, lack of good faith. Mr. <br />Greenleaf responded that there is a high standard of requirement for <br />findings in either case. <br />Ms. Miller stated that location of the urban growth boundary is part of <br />the completeness report while other items of disagreement come up as part <br />of the acknowledgment review. Mr. Greenleaf stated that the location of <br />urban growth boundaries was made part of the completeness review three <br />years ago. Ms. Miller noted that the boundaries must be agreed upon before <br />agreement can be reached on some other issues. Mr. Greenleaf stated that <br />it could have been done differently. Ms. Miller asked how the boundary <br />issue could be separated from the other issues. Mr. Greenleaf stated that e <br />it has become a separate issue due to how it has been submitted. <br />Mayor Keller asked if any of the other jurisdictions could not agree where <br />three or more jurisdictions were involved. Mr. Greenleaf stated that it <br />is not unusual to have problems resolving boundary issues. Some s i tua- <br />tions are handled by mediation, local compromise, an enforcement order, <br />and some situations have not been resolved yet. <br />Mr. Lieuallen stated that the alternatives in the letter are not good. <br />The City could agree ahead of time to have LCDC make the decision. That <br />seems to be the only alternative but more should be known about it before <br />this would be done. He noted this seems like the same proposal stated <br />differently. <br />Mr. Obie stated that there is an alternative solution. The City should be <br />willing to reassess its position. The plan required thousands of deci- <br />sions and perhaps some things were overlooked. He would urge the councils <br />of Springfield and Eugene as well as the commissioners to reopen their <br />minds. He would like to hear the best possible pro and con presentations <br />on the industrial triangle area. He would like to hear what-the County <br />heard that the council did not hear. He would like for the three bodies <br />to meet again,' have a public hearing, and hear the best arguments presented <br />by staff. Then each body could deliberate, redetermine their position, <br /> . <br /> 9/3/80--8 <br />