Laserfiche WebLink
plants were surviving in isolation. Regarding the issue of subsurface connections, Mr. O'Brien suggested that <br />City staff or a consultant could give the elected officials some indication of how those connections could be <br />measured. <br /> <br />Wanda Ballentine, 955 Lewis Street, #4, said that the world was experiencing climate change. She <br />emphasized the importance of wetlands to flood control. She said that wetlands serve as "sops" that absorb <br />water and keep it flowing. She said that isolated sites serve that function as well, and asked the elected <br />officials to keep in mind the potential of filling in such sites on nearby residents. <br /> <br />Michael Roberts, 1919 Myers Road, suggested the issue before the elected officials was one of how to <br />balance protection of the wetlands inside the urban growth boundary against the pressure that removing lands <br />for development from the land supply placed upon on that boundary. He urged the elected officials to keep <br />the larger picture in mind, and consider what was best for the community. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner closed public hearing for the City Council and indicated the record would be left open until <br />August 11, 1999. He indicated no action would be taken until the close of the record. <br /> <br />Mr. Green closed the public hearing for the Board of County Commissioners. <br /> <br />Mr. Bj6rklund said the elected officials had heard testimony proposing that they should adopt the strongest <br />possible criteria for the protection of wetlands. He said that the recommendations of the planning <br />commissions and council/board committee were intended to reflect the intent of the original plan, rather than <br />to pursue the most stringent wetlands protection. He added that was his understanding of the parameters <br />those groups had worked under. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly indicated that as an option the council/board committee could evaluate the testimony submitted and <br />make a recommendation to the elected officials. He anticipated that process could be completed by fall. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly requested a staff response regarding Ms. O'Brien's remarks regarding the internal inconsistency in <br />protection criterion 1. Mr. Bj6rklund pointed out that protection criterion 1 had been part of the planning <br />commissions' recommendation and had been first considered by the council for adoption in 1998. It was not <br />a product of the committee or a part of Board Alternative 2. <br /> <br />Responding to Mr. Hauser's testimony that the criteria left much open to interpretation, Mr. Kelly suggested <br />there was a danger in being too precise. He said that wetlands exist in degrees, and there must be a level of <br />professional judgment exercised by staff in evaluating a site. <br /> <br />Mr. Bj6rklund responded to testimony regarding underground hydrological connections. He said that staff <br />provided background to the committee on the issue. That information was based on two hydrological studies <br />conducted in the Willow Creek drainage, which concluded the hydrology in the wetlands was primarily driven <br />by precipitation and surface hydrology. He said that while in general the connection between wetlands, <br />recharge zones, and subsurface water was very important, it was staf?s conclusion that surface connections in <br />west Eugene were more important, particularly when considering the impacts of development, which would <br />be more likely to interrupt surface rather than groundwater flow. Mr. Bj6rklund noted that the criterion in <br />the original plan referred to geographical and hydrological connections, not subsurface connections. He <br />believed the criterion stated more explicitly the intent of the original plan criterion. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials-- August 4, 1999 Page 5 <br /> Eugene City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners <br /> <br /> <br />