CC Minutes - 02/18/98 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Cornacchia concluded by saying that he was not representing Hyundai, but was representing the interests of his constituents and abiding by the laws of the State and the Constitution. Ms. Nathanson regretted that many of those who offered testimony had left and were unable to benefit from the discussion. She said the elected officials often have full discussions that people were unaware of, so they were not aware of the rationale behind the decisions made. Ms. Nathanson raised the following questions for staff response at a later date. She asked if the City would still be in compliance with Federal and State laws if the board and council would be unable to reach agreement on the amendments. She asked if the planning commissions had taken into account State Goal 9 in its deliberations. Ms. Nathanson asked staff to discuss whether the amendments changed the balance in the plan or maintain the balance and clarify what the City was attempting to achieve originally. She asked about the purpose of the amendments: were they intended to limit or discourage development, or clarify and amplify existing policy? Ms. Nathanson asked staff to be prepared to discuss the actual potential for shifting development to outlying areas and increasing sprawl and intercity transit if the plan amendments were adopted. Ms. Nathanson asked staff for information on mitigation. She wanted to be reassured that mitigation was occurring and no net loss was occurring; rather, she suggested, there should be notable gains in the acreage of wetlands because mitigation occurs at a more than 1:1 ratio. Ms. Nathanson responded to comments offered in testimony questioning the appropriateness of Mr. Cornacchia's submitting his proposals two weeks prior to the hearing. She said that the purpose of the public hearing was to discover flaws in what was written, even if it had gone through extensive public debate. She said that the elected officials often receive such proposals and, while they do not always make the requested changes, it was not unheard of. She disagreed that it was inappropriate to raise additional ideas at this point, saying that the elected officials were supposed to enter into the public hearing with an open mind and willingness to consider new ideas. Ms. Nathanson said that the public hearing was not held to consider Mr. Cornacchia's proposals, but to consider the plan amendments that were in development for many months. She said that the elected officials were not going to abandon the protections in place, but were considering changes to those protections that some were interpreting as being more restrictive. Mr. Lee indicated interest in pursuing Mr. Boles' recommendation that the council seek a legal opinion about the issue of local control. Mr. Lee said that policies were a reflection of people's values. He understood Mr. Cornacchia's concerns and believed that he had made several good points. He agreed that it was important to have been communicating through this plan development process, but reminded Mr. Cornacchia he has been discourteous in the past and recognize ability to make mistakes. Mr. Laue said that the most important issue he perceived was whether the community could retain the value of the plan as it is now as a way to address the issue of wetlands within the urban growth boundary. MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials-- February 18, 1998 Page 15 Eugene City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners