Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Meisner expressed concern about the no-growth attitude expressed in testimony received by <br />the elected officials, particularly by recent residents. He found it troubling that such individuals <br />wanted no more growth now that they had arrived. <br /> <br />Ms. Dumdi echoed Mr. Cornacchia's concerns regarding balance in the plan. She said that she <br />wanted to see a win-win situation and was committed to working toward that goal. She <br />concurred with the staff recommendation regarding the two site-specific amendments. <br /> <br />Mr. Laue said that the WEWP was a national model because it did what it was supposed to do. <br />It was established to deal with an unanticipated circumstance; the City had targeted its <br />infrastructure investments in west Eugene to preserve farmlands north of the community, only to <br />face the ramifications of the Clean Water Act. The plan was the result. The amendments and <br />criteria were designed to protect the wetlands with the greatest value while allowing development <br />to go forward in appropriate ways. <br /> <br />Mr. Laue said that the elected officials should consider what was occurring in the way of <br />industrial development in the community. He pointed out that the industrial development in the <br />Chad Drive area had occurred on large parcels and only two or three were filled. The type of <br />development was not typically industrial. Mr. Laue said that the community could continue to <br />support light industrial development through its mixed use zones, and could redevelop old <br />industrial sites. He was reluctant, and believed it inadvisable, to get into a discussion of urban <br />growth boundary expansion at the same time as the WEWP was being considered. <br /> <br />Mr. Laue favored proceeding with consideration of the transportation and utility corridor <br />designations, and supported the staff recommendation related to the two site-specific <br />amendments. <br /> <br />Mr. Green said that when he spoke of reaching middle ground, his focus was on making the plan <br />better, not to weaken its protections. <br /> <br />Ms. Weeldreyer noted the importance she placed on the transportation and utility corridor <br />designations, and the need to process those designations in a timely manner. <br /> <br />Mr. Cornacchia asked if the designations related to the transportation and utility corridors could <br />be separated from the remainder of the amendments package. He said that the transportation <br />corridor designation was holding up West 18th road improvements. Mr. Klein said yes. Mr. <br />Cornacchia advocated for an early resolution of those designations in a separate forum, and <br />asked staff to schedule those discussions. Ms. Childs noted that a second public hearing would <br />be needed to apply those designations to sites. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee indicated he was looking forward to the remainder of the process. He commended the <br />materials presentation. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson referred to Exhibit A, Policy Amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan, <br />and suggested that the sentence in Section 3.17 that read "Sites which have very strong values <br />for protection criteria 1, 6, 7, or 8, or which have moderate values for 5 or more protection criteria <br />and Iow or no values..." be replaced with the following text: "Sites which have Iow or no values <br />for development criteria, and either strong values for...or moderate values for..." Ms. Childs <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 1998 Page 7 <br /> 11:30 a.m. <br /> <br /> <br />