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

Home Browse Search

Bettman, Mr. Bj0rklund indicated that staff had deferred making the adjustments to the Planning Commission's recommendation until it was aware of the direction the council would take. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman suggesting that the staff recommendation should be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration, Ms. Jerome said that was a policy question for the council, not a legal question. The City Attorney's Office felt confident the City could argue that the Planning Commission process led the council to consider the changes before it. Ms. Taylor did not understand the staff recommendation for the application of the safe harbor approach when a past council had already voted against it. Mr. Bj0rklund said that the council's decision to apply the standard process to the entire inventory dated back to the late 1980s and was reaffirmed by a recent council. The staff recommendation was based on testimony received in the two public hearings, which produced a considerable amount of new information, and also related to the issue of staff resources, which was not an issue when the initial decision was taken. Ms. Taylor asked what would happen if the City could not complete the inventory by the State deadline. Noting that the metropolitan area had already received one extension for its periodic review work, Mr. Radabaugh said that the Department of Land Conservation and Development was obliged to hold a public hearing if the area went over the deadline and consider its options, such as another extension, sanctions, or the interim application of the safe harbor approach, etc. He clarified, in response to a follow-up question, that he was not suggesting that the City had no choice but to apply the safe harbor approach; the department merely wanted the metropolitan area to move quickly to adopt an inventory. He said that most of the work done by the metropolitan area to this point involved the standard process. Mr. Radabaugh added that the DLCD "sees changes as delays." Ms. Taylor suggested that staff could do what was required in the time remaining if the council decided to take the standard approach. Mr. Bj0rklund said that the safe harbor inventory could probably be prepared in about the same time frame as the standard process inventory. Mr. Bj0rklund referred the council to a table entitled Goal 5: Safe Harbor Process and Protection Measures illustrating the differences between the standard and safe harbor approaches. Ms. Taylor asked why staff was recommending the safe harbor approach. Mr. Bj0rklund said that staff was recommending the approach because of a change in the circumstances around the inventory, staffing levels, cost, and the deadline set by the State. He said that staff wanted to get the needed work done without sacrificing the essential components of the ecosystem that were being addressed. It was staff's opinion that the water system was the most important part of the habitat system being considered, which was why staff recommended focusing on the water system in the uplands and throughout the remainder of the inventory area. Responding to a question from Mr. PapS, Ms. Childs confirmed that the Board of County Commissioners would have to adopt that portion of the City's inventory located outside the city limits but inside the urban growth boundary. The County was taking the safe harbor approach to Goal 5 resources in its jurisdiction. Mr. Pap8 asked Mr. Bj0rklund to discuss other possible approaches to protect waterways in the south hills. Mr. Bj0rklund said that waterways could be protected by the Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources process, focusing on conveyance and water quality. That could occur outside MINUTES - Eugene City Council June 23, 2003 Page 8 Work Session