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

Home Browse Search

restoration as policy. She said that the planning commissions considered the amendments clarification of existing policy rather than substantive changes. Amendment 61 added a new policy establishing a planned transportation corridor designation to allow planned improvements on protected wetlands. Ms. Childs said that amendments 84, 85, and 86 address utilities within protected wetlands. Amendment 65 added a new policy specifying that plan designations apply only to jurisdictional wetlands and included an administrative process to update the plan map when new wetland delineations were approved by the regulatory agencies, the United States Army Corps of Engineers and Oregon Division of State Lands. Ms. Childs said that exhibits B-D reflected findings of consistency with Oregon Statewide Planning Goals, refinement plan amendment criteria, and approval criteria. Ms. Childs noted correspondence received from Dick Briggs (dated February 2, 1998) and from Steve Cornacchia (February 6, 1998), included in the agenda packet. Not included in the meeting packet but distributed at the meeting included e-mail correspondence dated February 13, 1998, from Jan Spencer; e-mail correspondence dated February 17 from Clayton Walker; e- mail correspondence dated February 15 from Bern Johnson; a letter dated February 18 from Eugene Water & Electric Board; and letters received that day from the Eugene Natural History Society, Mary O'Brien, and a yellow sheet comparing the plan criteria recommended by the planning commissions to the criteria suggested by Mr. Cornacchia in his letter. Ms. Childs said that testimony provided to the planning commissions was part of the record. She acknowledged that staff had received e-mail correspondence and postcards related to one site addressed in the plan; that correspondence will be retained as testimony when specific sites are considered. Mr. Torrey indicated that the elected officials would take testimony from those in favor of the amendments, from those neither in favor nor opposed, and from those opposed, in turn. Mr. Torrey asked the elected officials to declare conflicts of interest. Mr. Torrey indicated he owned property in the area of west Eugene involved in the plan amendments and asked if that represented a conflict. City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated that at the most there was potential conflict and, having declared it, Mr. Torrey could participate in the proceedings. Mr. Torrey opened the public hearing. Art Farley, 710 Woodhills Drive, President of the Eugene Planning Commission, said the commission was very supportive of the plan and the recommendations it had forwarded. He commended the plan for its balance. Mr. Farley said that the plan amendments focused on three issues: 1) changes to the protection and development policies; 2) suggested new mitigation and restoration policies; and 3) the utility corridors. Regarding the amendments related to the development and protection criteria, Mr. Farley said that the commission did not attempt to rewrite the criteria but rather wanted to clarify what the plan meant. He cited Protection Criteria 1 as an example. Mr. Farley said that Protection Criteria 7 was added because experience with the plan indicated there was a need for flexibility in some of the designations; for example, perhaps a wetland was not of the highest quality, but was located in a key area or represented an important system connection. Conversely, Mr. Farley said, some sites with wetland potential were deemed developable because of their isolation from other sites. Other changes were approved for the sake of flexibility and balance. MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials-- February 18, 1998 Page 2 Eugene City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners