CC Minutes - 04/08/98 Work Session

Home Browse Search

might require an urban growth boundary expansion. He cited the Jasper Road area as an example of such an area. Mr. Cornacchia said that if Eugene wanted wetlands protection instead of special light industrial zoning, discussion of the creation of other opportunities for supplanting that lost inventory should be on the table. He indicated his willingness to work with the council to find an outcome that included protection for wetlands and an acknowledgment that the diversification of the economy resulting from a lessened timber harvest was important to the community. Mr. Cornacchia asked the elected officials to read his previously submitted letter carefully, asserting that there was no choice mentioned in that missive of special light industrial over wetlands, but concerns expressed about the loss of special light industrial lands that were important to a diversified economy. Ms. Swanson Gribskov favored removing the site-specific amendments from the package. She encouraged the two bodies to take separate actions on the transportation and utility corridor designations if they were unable to reach agreement on the remainder of the package. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that she had learned a great deal about the progress Eugene had made and the importance of the plan as a national model during the recent lobbying trip to Washington, DC. She said that the process was not pure science and was not a number crunching exercise, as demonstrated by Ms. Nathanson's remarks. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that the revised criteria appeared to be an improvement; she believed that they balanced interests and considered the context provided by other plans. She acknowledged Mr. Cornacchia's remarks, saying that as areas have been taken out of the developable inventory there had been no associated quid pro quo adjustment in the land supply. However, Ms. Swanson Gribskov believed that the application of the criteria was most significant, and she thought that the revised criteria spoke to the intent of the plan. Mr. Meisner agreed that the process was not pure science. He said that his hope was that the criteria provided him with guidance not solely based on politics when the elected bodies discussed the site-specific amendments. Mr. Meisner said that he had shared some of the concerns expressed by Mr. Cornacchia and had the opportunity to meet with staff to discuss them. He recollected a recent rezoning proposal request before the council; the property owner requested that 2-1/2 acres of special light industrial be rezoned to commercial for the expansion of a parking lot. Mr. Meisner said that he had asked at the time why the loss of special light industrial was significant in one area and not in another area. He asked if there were more or fewer acres lost to development if the council did not adopt the planning commissions' amendments. Mr. Meisner said that while he shared Mr. Cornacchia's concerns about the relative loss of development land, he balanced that concern against a concern about the loss of remaining wetlands. The large majority of wet prairie was gone. He pointed out that there was no way to expand the urban growth boundary to replace wetlands once lost. Mr. Meisner indicated his tentative preference was to accept the recommendations of the planning commissions and to remove the site specific amendments at this point. He expressed concern about the apparent exemptions to the regulations that Eugene Water & Electric Board appeared to be requesting in its testimony. Mr. Tollenaar observed that the amount of special light industrial buildable land was a creature of policy, unlike wetlands, which were a creature of nature. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 1998 Page 4 11:30 a.m.