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

Home Browse Search

the Goal 5 process as long as Goal 5 issues were not addressed as part of that process. Those waterways not protected by the Goal 5 process may be potentially protected by the Goal 6 process. Mr. Pap8 suggested that the City could protect such waterways using local ordinances. Ms. Jerome agreed. Mr. Pap8 asked Mr. Bj0rklund to speak to criticisms that the City's wetlands inventory should be sufficient. Mr. Bj0rklund said that a Goal 5 inventory for the entire community outside the boundaries of that inventory was a legal requirement. He said that there was no safe harbor option for wetlands. Ms. Solomon determined from Mr. Bj0rklund that sites previously determined not to be wetlands for the purposes of conservation through the West Eugene Wetlands Plan would not be included in the Goal 5 inventory because of the evaluative process they had already gone through. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly regarding what advantage existed in adopting the safe harbor approach to uplands if the time needed to complete the inventory was the same, Mr. Bj0rklund said that the concern was the completion of the entire process. The City would exceed the deadline for the adoption of the inventory and the next steps. If the City used the standard process for all sites, that would require more Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) analysis for each, creating a much longer time frame to completion. Mr. Kelly suggested that the issue would be one of the degree of delay as the City would be out of compliance either way. Mr. Kelly appreciated staff pointing out that some stream corridors could be protected through the Goal 6 process, but he questioned whether the political will existed to do so, given that the proposed stormwater fee increase might not be implemented. Mr. Kelly said that he had heard that part of the reason for the changed recommendation was to avoid litigation; he believed that litigation would occur either way. He thanked Mr. Bj0rklund and Ms. Siegenthaler for their hard work throughout the Goal 5 process and thought it sad that the current staff recommendation threw out years of staff and Planning Commission work. Mr. Meisner asked staff to secure the council copies of the maps mounted on the wall, and a copy of the 2(d) option map. He also asked staff to provide the council with information about adjustments to the inventory that had been made to this point, specifically to confirm the numbers and acreage. Mayor Torrey solicited a second round of comments. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Kelly that a change in direction would be a waste of time and money. She said that in terms of the upland waterways, there was no automatic protection for them as the degree of protection had not been determined and the City did not know if the waterways qualified for protection. Only those areas marked on the map in red would be protected. She did not want the council to waste time pretending that there were other processes to protect those resources. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Radabaugh said that DLCD's contract for the inventory was with the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG), working on behalf of the metropolitan jurisdictions, not with the City of Eugene. It was LCOG's obligation to carry out the contract using the standard process. None of the contracts addressed the safe harbor approach. He said that nothing in the contract discussed what the cities eventually adopted. He did not MINUTES - Eugene City Council June 23, 2003 Page 9 Work Session