CC Minutes - 06/23/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

know if there was a City obligation to the DLCD. Ms. Bettman asked what would happen if a majority of the City Council decided to go with the safe harbor approach: Where was the contract for that? Responding to a question from Mr. PapS, Mr. Radabaugh reported that in 1996 the Land Conservation and Development Commission had adopted the new Goal 5 rule, which introduced the safe harbor approach. Since that rule was adopted after the City adopted its work program in 1995, it was entitled to take advantage of the rule. Ms. Nathanson questioned whether the City was actually "tossing out years of work" if the council chose to take the safe harbor approach. She asked if the work that had been done had been utilized in the Parks and Open Space acquisition process or if the Parks and Open Space Division staff had started its work from scratch. Mr. Bj0rklund said he did know enough to answer the question. Ms. Nathanson thought the council's goal should be to protect properties that were obviously valuable and get properties without such values off the table, leaving only those requiring further analysis. She asked if the standard approach for all upland properties would force new protections on those properties. Mr. Bj0rklund said that was one of the underpinnings to the staff recommendation. He reminded the council that when it considered the initial inventory in 1993, the protection provisions for the upland inventory included some minor changes to tree cutting provisions that could be accomplished in another way, narrow street standards that had been addressed through the Local Street Plan, and ridgeline acquisitions that had been accomplished. In response to Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Bj0rklund said he did not think that the work that had been done was being thrown away. He suggested the recommendation was a natural evolution of that work. He questioned whether the additional work required for the standard process would result in anything different being accomplished. Mr. Bj0rklund said that staff and the Planning Commission had discussed the need to focus the inventory because of limited staff resources, the pending deadline, and property owners who were upset by the uncertainty of the process. That uncertainty would be increased by the time required to complete the standard process. Mr. Bj0rklund said the commission discussed a compromise approach that got it to the same outcome with less work. For that reason, the staff recommended the split approach. The recommendation was based on the concept that while there was value in the forested areas, the City was more likely to protect waterways through regulation. The City's active parks acquisition program meant that much of the forested area in the uplands had been acquired already. He suggested that focusing on those areas the City was most likely to protect would get it to the desired end with less work. Ms. Nathanson said that it appeared that staff was not recommending safe harbor as a complete solution due to the length of the survey process and the fact that protections could be more rigid through that process. She thought the staff recommendation a reasonable compromise. Ms. Taylor noted that the City used both tax money and volunteer hours on the inventory. She said that should not be discounted. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Bj0rklund confirmed that there were no property protections adopted at the time the inventory was adopted; however, there could be protections applied later on, and that was what the property owners did not know and were concerned about. MINUTES - Eugene City Council June 23, 2003 Page 10 Work Session