Laserfiche WebLink
believed that they had been confused by the modifications proposed by Mr. Cornacchia and that <br />those offering testimony to that effect had been supportive of the amendments recommended by <br />the commissions. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked about the effect of removing the site-specific amendments as proposed by staff. <br />Ms. Childs said that all the site-specific amendments would be considered at the same time. <br />She also said that those wishing to develop on those sites prior to adoption of site-specific <br />amendments would have to go through the AC©E's 404 permitting process, noting that approach <br />was available to any property owner in the plan area. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor recollected that the council had previously been told it could not act on the plan <br />independently of the board, which did not appear to be the same advice contained in the City <br />Attorney's opinion included with the meeting packet. Mr. Klein responded that the opinion stated <br />the City Council could not act unilaterally regarding the plan but might be able to protect wetlands <br />within the city limits in the west Eugene area without making changes to the plan. If the City <br />Council decided to do so, it could take action to protect wetlands within the city limits as long as <br />that action was consistent with the policies in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. The council <br />could not change the criteria without the concurrence of the board. <br /> <br />Mr. Cornacchia said that he continued to be concerned about the supply of buildable lands in <br />Eugene, and asked if it was possible for staff to project the impact of adopting the amendments <br />on that land supply. He requested information on the number of acres of special light industrial <br />land in Eugene prior to adoption of the plan in 1992, the number of acres available today, and the <br />total number of acres lost because of wetlands protection. Mr. Cornacchia wanted to know how <br />many more acres of such land would be lost if the criteria were applied to all sites in the plan <br />area. <br /> <br />Mr. Cornacchia said that the plan was not just a protection plan for wetlands; it had been <br />supported by a majority of the board in 1992 because of the assurances by City and Lane <br />Council of Governments staff of the balance in the plan. He said that if the amendments altered <br />that balance, he wanted to know that. He pointed out that the Metropolitan Plan included policies <br />related to business assistance, but those policies were not referenced or discussed in the <br />wetlands plan. <br /> <br />Referring to the letter from the ACOE, Mr. Cornacchia said that the letter should have been <br />expected given that AC©E was not in the business of development, but rather in the business of <br />protecting wetlands. He said that during the adoption of the original plan, it was stated that if the <br />plan resulted in no net loss the AC©E would have to accept it. Mr. Cornacchia said that he did <br />not think the AC©E's letter was specific about the agency's concerns and included no criteria to <br />justify its analysis of his proposals. He said that the elected officials needed more facts. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs said that staff could review the adopted inventories in the Industrial Lands Study and <br />WEWP and provide a detailed breakdown by zoning category of the land affected. <br /> <br />Mr. Cornacchia said that he wished to see the issues involved resolved without overly simplistic <br />political wrangling, which he believed could easily occur. He said that if staff's research indicated <br />a significant reduction in the community's opportunities to develop in a special light fashion in <br />Eugene, perhaps there was a tradeoff to be considered; other areas of the metropolitan area, <br />specifically Springfield, would welcome additional special light industrial land. However, that <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 1998 Page 3 <br /> 11:30 a.m. <br /> <br /> <br />