CC Minutes - 05/28/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

required additional public hearings for the adoption of regulations. Mr. Bj0rklund said that the safe harbor provisions were very proscriptive in terms of resulting regulations, and the City would be required to do code amendments to meet those provisions of the law. The City could use its existing code protections for the standard inventory process. He believed the difference in time between the two processes was in the range of months rather than years. Mr. Poling asked Mr. Bj0rklund to contrast the cost of the two processes. Mr. Bj0rklund said staff assumed that the work associated with either process could be done with the existing staff and existing budget, and the department did not intend to ask the council for more money to complete the effort. Ms. Bettman asked Mr. Bj0rklund to estimate the length of each process before the City had a Goal 5 inventory with some protections. Mr. Bj0rklund clarified that sites were not protected until the inventory was completed and regulations adopted and applied. The work needed would potentially be completed in a year under either process. He pointed out that the public review and adoption process was a variable that affected the time line. He noted that under the safe harbor approach, the City would be dealing with about ten percent of the sites it was addressing under the standard inventory process as the safe harbor approach prescribed what sites were included in the inventory. Ms. Bettman recalled that the process started in 1992, and now the metropolitan area was still at Step 1. The process had taken more than a decade to this point. She asked how long the remaining five steps would take to accomplish. Mr. Bj0rklund clarified that the council would see the next five steps as a single action. Those steps involved the evaluation and analysis process. The council would review the inventory with recommendations for each site, suggested protection measures for each site, and proposed new regulations if staff determined those were needed. Assuming the City could use existing regulations and did not need to do code amendments, Mr. Bj0rklund estimated that the work could be done in a year. He attributed the length of the process to this point to the fact that previously, all three jurisdictions had to reach agreement on the various subtasks. Now Eugene was proceeding on its own and did not have to negotiate with the other jurisdictions for identical provisions. Ms. Bettman asked how the council could determine whether changes to the code would be needed if that could be done before the public hearing. Mr. Bj0rklund said that without knowing the nature of the resources to be protected and their location, it was impossible to say whether existing regulations would address them. While provisions such as the City's waterside setbacks could be adequate for most waterways, without knowing more about specific sites he could not say with certainty that any of the sites to be protected could be protected using existing regulations. Ms. Bettman said that there was public testimony commenting on steps 2-5, specific to the impact on specific properties. She questioned whether that testimony was relevant to the council's decision at this stage of the process. Mr. Bj0rklund said it was relevant to the question of whether a property was removed from the inventory. If a property was removed, it was no longer being considered for protection through the Goal 5 process. He said that the decision before the council now was not whether to protect properties, but whether to study them further. Mr. Meisner asked what had been spent to this point on the study and the source of funding and staffing. Mr. Bj0rklund indicated that he did not know the total cost of the study. Mr. Meisner wanted that information, from the beginning of the process (1992) to this point. He asked how Eugene compared to what other jurisdictions in the state were doing. He asked if the Eugene- MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 2003 Page 2 Work Session