CC Minutes - 04/08/98 Work Session

Home Browse Search

the plan to take effect. If the two bodies do not adopt the same amendments, the existing plan criteria will remain in effect. Two new plan designations had been proposed related to utility and transportation corridors; if the two bodies failed to take the same action, they would not be included in the plan. Ms. Childs reviewed the meeting packet, calling attention to the testimony notebook received by the two bodies in March and the two memorandums related to today's meeting: 1) a memorandum categorizing testimony by amendment and responding to questions posed by the elected officials following the public hearing; and 2) a City Attorney memorandum responding to a question from the council regarding its authority to act unilaterally. Ms. Childs said that staff concurred with testimony proposing that two site-specific amendments not be considered at this time, and recommended that the two amendments be pulled from the ordinance at this time. Mr. Meisner asked if there was any concept of severability for the elected officials to consider; if one body passed all the amendments while the other passed all but one, did the remainder go into effect or must the ordinances be identical? City Attorney Glenn Klein responded that there was no clear answer to Mr. Meisner's question; if the City Council adopted all the amendments and Lane County adopted all but one, he would recommend that the City Council adopt another ordinance that included all the amendments adopted by the County. Ms. Nathanson distributed tables she had prepared in anticipation of the discussion. The tables demonstrated the application of the criteria. Ms. Nathanson said that a question had been asked after the hearing as to whether the amendments maintained the balance in the plan or changed the balance; staff had indicated the amendments were intended to bring clarity and certainty to the community regarding wetlands. Ms. Nathanson noted that the staff report stated that nearly all the proposed changes favored the development designation as compared to the current plan. Ms. Nathanson reviewed the tables she had prepared and discussed how the criteria would be applied. She said that the issue before the elected officials was not the number of criteria applied but rather how they were applied. She said that as she reviewed the criteria, she realized that each set-Protect or Develop--had one criteria that, if met, would automatically lead to protection or development. Ms. Nathanson said that if a site had high values for one of the criteria and only no or Iow values listed under development, than the site was protected. She said that if there were moderate or high values for development, than staff would have to apply some judgment and could not automatically protect the site. Ms. Nathanson said that there was still considerable balancing occurring. She believed that the plan retained its initial balance between protection and development. Ms. Nathanson said that the Army Corps of Engineers' (ACOE) letter indicated to her the importance of maintaining the integrity of the plan, which was not just a compact between Eugene and Lane County but also with State and federal agencies. She did not want to amend the plan to the degree that the AC©E would reject it, and the community lose the benefit of all the work that had been done. Ms. Nathanson endorsed the recommendations of the Lane County and Eugene planning commissions as reasonable and said that they maintained a balance between protection and development. She noted that some had called on the elected officials to keep the plan, but MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 1998 Page 2 11:30 a.m.