Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Taylor indicated she did not object to hearing the staff report. She wanted to postpone <br />consideration of adoption of the changes and said she did not object to substituting "action on" <br />for "consideration of." <br /> <br />Mr. Torrey suggested that the council consider the motion to postpone action. He added he <br />hoped the council would defeat the motion, listen to the staff presentation, and proceed from that <br />point. He noted the item was on no council agenda in the remaining time left in 1998. He said <br />he was frustrated that the council was at one time urged to move more quickly earlier in the year, <br />and now was being sent letters by the same people urging it to slow down the process. Mr. <br />Torrey said that the issue was very political. He added that he would feel comfortable having the <br />current council make the final decision but acknowledged that was unlikely to occur. <br /> <br /> The motion failed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. <br /> <br />Planning Director Jan Childs clarified that staff was not seeking final action but rather direction <br />from the council on alternatives for future ordinances that the council would consider in February <br />or March 1999. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs said the threshold question before the council was whether it was interested in <br />pursuing amendments to the criteria. She said that there was agreement between the City and <br />County on all the policy and text amendments except for the changes to the criteria for <br />protection, development, and restoration. Ms. Childs recommended that the council continue to <br />try to reach agreement with the County Board of Commissioners about the criteria. She said that <br />if the council decided it wished to pursue agreement with the County, it was appropriate to hold <br />public comment opportunities before selecting an alternative. She added that the City Council <br />would still have to hold a public hearing on the final ordinance. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Farr regarding the time-sensitive nature of the issue, Ms. <br />Childs suggested that if the council agreed to continue to work with the County on the criteria <br />amendments, it would need to take early action on the planned transportation corridor <br />amendment to allow transportation projects in the area to go forward. <br /> <br />Lane Council of Governments Senior Planner Steve Gordon provided the staff presentation, <br />prefacing his remarks by praising the West Eugene Wetlands Plan, the plan partnership, and the <br />mitigation bank as models for the entire country. <br /> <br />Mr. Gordon reviewed the process to this point and expressed his hope the council would <br />continue to work toward reaching agreement with the County to ensure the plan continued to be <br />an adopted plan of both the County and the City. He said that the County, while contributing no <br />money to the implementation of the plan, was crucial to the program in terms of how rural lands <br />were addressed and how County Road Funds were expended in the area. He noted concerns <br />expressed by Commissioner Cornacchia that the council had failed to consider or discuss some <br />alternative proposals he had put forth. <br /> <br />Mr. Gordon noted that the City and County had reached agreement on 26 of 29 text <br />amendments, and the areas of disagreement were narrowed to key policies in the plan. Those <br />policies addressed restoration, protection, and development of wetlands. <br /> <br />MINUTES-Eugene City Council November 25, 1998 Page 11 <br /> 11:30 a.m. <br /> <br /> <br />