Laserfiche WebLink
A. Continued Work Session: West Eugene Wetlands Plan <br /> <br />Jan Childs, Planning and Development Department, provided the staff presentation. She said <br />that the council had been contacted about a proposal from the Board of County Commissioners <br />to hold an initial public hearing on the policy ordinance related to the West Eugene Wetlands <br />Plan (WEWP) before considering the site-specific plan amendments. In those contacts, a <br />majority of the council had indicated its acceptance of the proposal. Ms. Childs said that <br />Commissioner Steve Cornacchia had asked several questions related to the criteria and followed <br />up his questions with a letter suggesting several changes to the plan policy. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked why the Board of County Commissioners should be able to change the process, <br />and when people would have an opportunity to comment about the Hyundai site. Ms. Elmer said <br />that the board had offered the proposal, and she considered it of sufficient merit to bring to the <br />council. Ms. Elmer said that the actual scheduling was an administrative decision. She believed <br />it was a better approach because it meant that the council and board would have up-front <br />agreement on the criteria. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Childs reminded the council that Hyundai could <br />apply for a 404 fill permit from the Army Corps of Engineers at any time. Hyundai has indicated it <br />wanted to work through the local process, and she did not anticipate the company would apply <br />for a 404 permit during the planning process. <br /> <br />Ms. Elmer said that the specific site amendments could not be considered until agreement was <br />reached about the policy ordinance. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked if the City could amend the plan without County concurrence. Mr. Klein <br />responded that the plan was a joint City-County effort, and would be in place unless the City <br />could persuade the County to repeal the plan. He said that the plan was acknowledged by the <br />State. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that the revised process design made sense to her and seemed consistent <br />with other <br />City processes. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that he favored the proposal to divide the hearings. He said that the City <br />needed to remind people that the policy changes must proceed the site amendments. <br />Mr. Lee was concerned about the level of understanding in the community regarding the <br />difference between the ordinances. He said that the process needed to address that and ensure <br />that people did not think the City was trying to hide something. <br /> <br />Mr. Torrey suggested that the staff address the issue in its introduction of the item, and attempt to <br />explain the potential impact of the policy on certain sites. Ms. Childs said that staff could provide <br />a description of relationship between policy decision and wetland designation. She believed Mr. <br />Cornacchia's letter would provoke considerable testimony from those who might not have <br />previously considered the relationship between the policy language and its application to specific <br />sites. She said that the inclusion of specific recommendations for change will help focus that <br />discussion. Ms. Childs said that word about the separation of the hearings and the importance of <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 11, 1998 Page 4 <br /> 11:30 a.m. <br /> <br /> <br />