CHAPTER 4

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND STAFF RESPONSES

 

4. INDEX FOR SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND STAFF RESPONSES

  1. SUPPORT FOR WEST EUGENE WETLANDS DRAFT PLAN

  2. COMPREHENSIVE WETLANDS PLAN - STATE APPROVAL

  3. OPPOSITION TO THE WEST EUGENE WETLANDS DRAFT PLAN

  4. CONCERNS & QUESTIONS RAISED ABOUT THE DRAFT PLAN

    1. Regional Permit
    2. Wetland Definitions
    3. Takings
    4. Other Legal Issues
    5. Plan's Effect on Property Values
    6. The Plan
    7. Mitigation
    8. Funding
    9. Effects on Adjacent Property
    10. Who Supports the Plan
    11. Rare Plants & Insects
    12. Citizen Involvement
    13. Water Quality
    14. Secondary Study Area
    15. Uplands & Ridgeline Trail
    16. Private Property Rights
    17. Validity & Availability of Information
    18. Maps
    19. Public Health
    20. Federal Regulations & Policies
    21. Effects on Other Jurisdictions
    22. Who Benefits
    23. Relationship to Other Plans

  5. SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS

  6. CITIZEN RECOMMENDATIONS

Table of Contents

 

4. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND STAFF RESPONSES

I. SUPPORT FOR WEST EUGENE WETLANDS DRAFT PLAN

There was support for the draft Plan expressed for the following reasons:
A. It meets the federal wetlands mandates, (Oral: E. Wojahn, Eugene Planning Commission, 4-8-92, p. 2; S. Cook, p. 6; I).
B. Adds certainty for development and resource protection, (Oral: E. Wojahn, Eugene Planning Commission, 4-8-92, p. 2; I); the Regional permit will provide certainty to landowners (Oral: D. Jones, League of Women Voters, 4-8-92; B).
C. Allows industrial development to proceed in west Eugene, (Oral: E. Wojahn, Eugene Planning Commission, 4-8-92, p. 2; I).
D. Adds amenities and recreation, to west Eugene, (Oral: E. Wojahn, 4-8-92, p. 2; I).
E. Serves as a national model and will lead to federal funding support, (Oral: E. Wojahn, Eugene Planing Commission, 4-8-92, p. 2; I).
F. Protects wetlands resources and insures no net loss, (Oral: D. Jones, League of Women Voters, 4-8-92, p. 4; B).
G. Provides performance standards for mitigation, annual reports with opportunity for citizen review, and stronger regulatory controls for wetlands, (Oral: D. Jones, League of Women Voters, 4-8-92, p. 4; B).
H. Preserves natural landscapes in an urbanized place, (S. Cook, 4-8-92, p. 6).
I. Uses a multiple objectives approach dealing with wetlands protection in a systems approach, water quality, wildlife habitat, open space, scenery, recreation, flood control, rare and endangered species protection, and education, (Oral: 4-8-92, S. Cook, p. 6; J. Selliken, p. 7; J).
J. Protects wetlands for the future for wildlife, fish, water values, and the beauty of Oregon, (W. A. Miller, C).
K. Protects wetland corridors, (Oral: J. Selliken, 4-8-92, p. 7).
L. We've lost too many wetlands already. This has a detrimental effect on people and nature, (A. Gillespie, W-11).
M. The plan provides a balance between development and natural wetland areas, (A. Gillespie, W-11).
0. Provides reasonable solutions to a myriad of problems, (W. Alexander, HH).
P. Supports the plan's solutions (R. Rexius, GG).
Q. Provides comprehensive approach to wildlife habitat (W; Castillo, ODF&W, FF).
R. Addresses many wetland problems (R. Svingen, II).
S. Provides balanced solution to many issues (A. Farley, Lane Co. Audubon Soc., DD).
T. Provides solution to primary area - delay secondary area (R. Moulton, QQ).
U. Opportunity to strike a balance between all interest involved, including property owners, (E. Stepp, JJJ).

Table of Contents

Index for Summary of Comments and Staff Responses

 

II. COMPREHENSIVE WETLANDS PLAN - STATE APPROVAL

The Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL) has been working with the City, Lane County and LCOG. To date, West Eugene Wetlands Special Area Study (WEWSAS) has been developed in a manner to conform to ORS 196 requirements. DSL is looking forward to receiving WEWSAS under the Wetland Conservation Plan Process., (K. Bierly, DSL, P, 4-8-92).

Table of Contents

Index for Summary of Comments and Staff Responses

 

III. OPPOSITION TO THE WEST EUGENE WETLANDS DRAFT PLAN

There was stated opposition to the draft Plan:
The following comments (A-J) were submitted with expressed opposition to the draft Wetlands Plan. Some were without stated reason. Others gave a reason or reasons for the opposition. A common staff response is provided to the statements in opposition.
A. Protect farm land, (Oral: R. Ringsdorf, 4-8-92, p. 3; N).
B. Not enough citizen involvement, (Oral: F. Brown, 4-8-92, p. 3).
C. Little need for the Plan; less expensive to leave property as it is, (Oral: B. Bales, 4-8-92, p. 5).
D. Just go away! (Anonymous, W-1).
E. Drop secondary plan, (Anonymous, W-4).
F. (S. Williams, R), Reasons for opposition:

1. Takings
2. Misuse of zoning and regulatory powers restricts uses without reimbursement.
3. If wetlands are important, government should buy the land
4. Using zoning to "devalue or steal" land
5. Places financial burden on owners
6. Pay taxes on full market value
7. Uses negative control instead of positive incentives
G. Human beings need to be added to the endangered list. Protect American freedoms and property rights, (U)
H. Affected property owners do not support the plan, (K. & S. Jones, KK)
I. Recommends elected officials to vote NO! (M. & R. Ringsdorf, VV)
J. Go back to the drawing board, (J. Lorenz, XX)
RESPONSE:
These staff responses deal with comments A-J in one response:

The comments come from citizens in the secondary study area. Staff recommends that the draft Plan be adopted by the elected officials. Staff is not recommending that treatment of the secondary study area be that as contained in the March 1991 draft Plan. The changes recommended by staff address the concerns raised by citizens in the secondary area.

Table of Contents

Index for Summary of Comments and Staff Responses

Next Page of This Report

------------------------------

Previous Report Next Report