CC Minutes - 10/22/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman said it appeared that 30 of the 74 sites originally identified had been removed from the inventory because they had been developed. Noting the long time it had taken the study to reach this point, she asked if the inclusion of a site on the list increased pressure to develop the sites, and if staff had an idea of what percentage of the remaining sites would be developed because they were on the list. Mr. Wold responded that most of the 30 sites mentioned by Ms. Bettman were included in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan and were indicated on a wall map in light green. Those sites were identified in the very early stages of the previous version of the study and addressed through West Eugene Wetlands Plan. Mr. Wold did not have personal knowledge of any sites that had been purposely destroyed because people thought they would be included in the inventory, and was unable to speculate about the percentage of sites that might be lost. He acknowledged the development pressure that existed for sites in the south hills of Eugene and Springfield and the potential that some sites on the list would be developed before the plan was fully adopted in two years. He said that would not be because the sites were listed on the inventory, but rather because the land was zoned for residential use. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about the schedule for staff to check in with the elected officials on study progress, Ms. Wiederhold indicated that the next scheduled check-in was about one year out, after all study products were developed in draft form. Ms. Taylor shared Ms. Bettman's concern that sites would be lost to development before the study was adopted. She wanted to speed up next steps in the process to avoid that situation. Mr. Farr and Mr. Pap8 arrived at the meeting. Ms. Taylor asked if there had been discussion of tax waivers for preservation. Ms. Wiederhold said yes, indicating tax waivers were included in the list of incentives for further examination staff had previously mentioned. Ms. Taylor asked if there was a way to guarantee that a tax waiver granted for preservation could go beyond the current owner. Mr. Wold said that a conservation easement was generally the preferred approach, because easements lasted in perpetuity and were accompanied by tax benefits. Benefits from a tax waiver program would not last forever. Ms. Nathanson noted that a main objective of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan was to create, restore, or enhance contiguous wetlands rather than preserve a disconnected checkerboard pattern of wetlands. She asked if the Planning Commission had discussed how that concept did or did not manifest itself in the criteria before the council. Mr. Belcher noted that the commission discussed the concept as a potential criteria. He deferred to Mr. Wold for further explanation. Mr. Wold said that one of the study goals was to have a connected system to the degree possible, but a connected system was not a specific criteria for adding a site to the inventory. He said that it could be a criteria for the Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) analysis. He added that one thing that distinguished the West Eugene Wetlands Plan from the study in question was that when the wetlands plan was developed there were still relatively large blocks of wetlands that had not been filled and could be connected. He noted that there were sites that may not necessarily be connected, but served as habitat for wildlife, such as birds, that could move between sites without the need for physical connectivity. Mr. Kelly noted testimony received by the planning commissions regarding Gillespie Butte, and asked staff to highlight its natural resources values to Parks staff. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 22, 2001 Page 6 Work Session