Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Rayor asked what Springfield was doing with the Tier 2 threshold question. Mr. Wold <br />responded that the Springfield Planning Commission had discussed the criteria and several <br />commissioners were concerned about the criterion related to a natural area greater than one acre <br />and wanted to increase that to five acres. Several had asked for further explanation as to why the <br />minimum threshold score of 17 was chosen for the habitat assessment as opposed to another <br />number. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Rayor, Mr. Wold said that all three elected <br />bodies needed to discuss the planning commissions' recommendations, and ideally there would <br />be consensus; in the absence of consensus, the Metropolitan Policy Committee would be asked <br />to resolve differences between jurisdictions. He noted that Eugene was the first jurisdiction to <br />consider the plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner shared Ms. Nathanson's concerns regarding the terminology used in the different <br />planning documents. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner questioned how much connectivity existed between the many similar planning efforts <br />that were occurring for things such as the stormwater program, the Open Space Bond, and the <br />Endangered Species listing. He wanted to know if staff was working together to ensure <br />coordination happened. He disliked"jargon," and had legal concerns about protecting natural <br />resources areas by regulation. Mr. Meisner noted the issue of exactions or takings, and <br />questioned if the jurisdictional partners were interested in an acquisition program. Mr. Wold said <br />yes. Staff was working closely together with the staff working on the other efforts mentioned by <br />Mr. Meisner. Ms. Wiederhold indicated that staff would look closely at the study to see if the <br />language could be made more consistent with the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. She added that, <br />in terms of possible protection measures, staff supported a wide range of tools, and did not <br />support a reliance on regulation alone. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked how future sites would be added to the inventory. Mr. Wold said that prior to <br />adoption, sites meeting the significance criteria can be added to the inventory. Staff would <br />propose a process through which new sites could be added following adoption. Ms. Wiederhold <br />added that the issue of both adding and removing sites had been of concern for the Eugene <br />Planning Commission as well. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly was impressed by the thoroughness of the work that had occurred with a limited budget, <br />and commended the level of collaboration on the part of staff. He thought it was clear from the <br />minutes that the planning commissions had given considerable thought to their recommendations, <br />and he was willing to defer to those recommendations. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly indicated appreciation and support for staff's examination of a wide range of tools. <br /> <br />For the benefit of the audience, Mr. Kelly said that the inclusion of a site on the inventory did not <br />necessarily imply the site would be protected; that would be determined in the next phase of the <br />study. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Wold that the wetland site in Skinner Butte Park, which <br />consisted of a very wet grass lawn on the north side of the butte, was not included in the inventory <br />because it did not score high in terms of the criteria and it was better addressed in the Skinner <br />Butte Park Master Plan. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 22, 2001 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />