Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Gordon said that at the County's request, he had analyzed the amendments and developed <br />two alternatives for the board's consideration. He said that the board indicated that Alternative 2 <br />was a good place to begin discussion. <br /> <br />Mr. Gordon reviewed his conclusions, reporting that he had determined that Amendment 62, new <br />Policy 3.17, criteria for protection and development, was not consistent with the intent of the <br />plan. He suggested that the policy was ahead of wetlands science. He referred the council to <br />page 15 of his analysis, where he had paraphrased the introduction to the policy and identified <br />where the criteria actually functioned as standards. Mr. Gordon said that the use of modifiers <br />such as "high value," moderate value," and "low value" were problematic in that they were <br />subjective terms. He did not think the criteria were stated in an easily measurable manner. <br /> <br />Mr. Gordon showed the council maps of the plan area and suggested the councilors take a <br />landscape view of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan area. He pointed out the wetlands system on <br />the map and showed where sites were being protected. Mr. Gordon emphasized that the <br />wetlands involved were a system with the stream corridors in west Eugene representing the <br />"backbone" of the system. He noted ownership patterns on the map indicating that the West <br />Eugene Wetlands Partnership's acquisitions closely followed the street corridor "backbone." He <br />said that a connected system made sense from a management and maintenance point of view <br />as well and lessened conflicts with adjacent lands. <br /> <br />Mr. Gordon said that Alternative 2 allowed the City to consider many of the same factors as were <br />included in the currently adopted plan, but gave the elected officials to step back from the system <br />once individual sites were evaluated and determine if the picture made sense. He said that <br />could occur from both the development and protection points of view. <br /> <br />Mr. Torrey believed it would be advantageous to resolve the threshold question by the end of the <br />year, with the understanding hearings and final action would take place in 1999. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that he was willing to proceed with the process with reluctance. He said that <br />often citizens accuse the council of not having heard them because the council did not do what <br />they wanted; he felt the situation before the council was similar. Because the council had not <br />taken action on Commissioner Cornacchia's recommendations, it was being told it had not <br />listened. He was not optimistic about continuing the process of joint adoption and said he was <br />inclined to move ahead independently. Mr. Meisner said that the County, in the same manner as <br />in the case of the enterprise zone, appeared to be threatening to veto what action the City <br />Council took. He indicated tentative support for Alternative 2, adding that he wanted to become <br />more knowledgeable about its implications <br /> <br />Mr. Farr said that it was essential that the process proceed and that the two bodies maintain a <br />joint plan for the reasons cited by Mr. Gordon. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr left the meeting at 1:30 p.m. <br /> <br />Mr. Tollenaar agreed that the council should move forward with the process. He said that the <br />council should examine the board's proposal closely. He was unsure that the probability criterion <br />was a standard as it was not objective and was not something that could be measured. He was <br />concerned about the elimination of hydrological connections as a criteria for protection and very <br />concerned about the elimination of the preamble to the criteria. Mr. Tollenaar said he would like <br />to hear the rationale for dropping the preamble. He questioned how the balancing Mr. Gordon <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 25, 1998 Page 12 <br /> 11:30 a.m. <br /> <br /> <br />