CC Minutes - 07/28/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Bj6rklund referred to an acreage figure of 1,182 at the top of page 22 of the agenda and said the figure should actually be 1,167. He said the table on page 29 of the agenda should be corrected to show an "N" instead of a "Y" in the "Correction warranted?" column for the Tom Russell property on the first line. He went on the say that changed the total number of properties where corrections were warranted from 26 to 25. He said that since the inventory was last before the council, staff had made corrections based on site visits and a review of the record and determined that 15.2 acres did not meet any of the Tier 1 criteria. Ms. Nathanson referred to agenda page 21 and noted that 30 percent of the upland sites recommended by the Planning Commission were currently in City-owned parkland. She asked if any of the other sites were on a list to purchase if there was a willing seller. Mr. Bj6rklund said he understood there were additional areas being considered, but he did not know the official status. Mr. Pap~ asked for clarification of the significance criteria on agenda page 15. Mr. Bj6rklund replied that a site would have to meet one of the Tier 1 criteria and both of the Tier 2 criteria in order to be considered significant in the areas where the standard process was applied. Ms. Bettman commented that the Tier 1 and Tier 2 significance criteria were applicable to the Standard Process. She asked if the Tier 2 criteria were applicable to those sites for which the Safe Harbor method was now used. Mr. Bj6rklund said that for the areas in which Safe Harbor applied, the Safe Harbor criteria in the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) were used, and it was not necessary to adopt them locally. Ms. Bettman asked if it was possible to select from among the OAR Safe Harbor criteria those the City wanted to use. Mr. Bj6rklund responded that choosing the Safe Harbor process required using the criteria exactly as they appeared in OAR, without modification. Ms. Meisner expressed appreciation for the maps and the table of site-specific testimony with staff response. He asked if it was possible to modify the inventory, once adopted, by removing a site if it was subsequently determined there was a basis to do so. Mr. Bj6rklund said it was within the council's purview to amend the inventory through an ordinance that amended the Metro Plan and that it could not be done through staff action alone. Mr. Pap~ suggested to the City Manager that the impact on the inventory ofbuildable land of adopting the Goal 5 inventory, and similar actions within the urban growth boundary (UGB), should be closely monitored. Mayor Torrey, referring to the table on agenda page 29, noted that the remark "Insufficient info to warrant change" appeared in the Comments column for several properties. He asked if that meant a change could be made if additional information was provided, or if it meant that a decision had been made that no change would be made. Mr. Bj6rklund replied that a change would be made only if new information was received into the record. He said that staff could not administratively MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 3 Work Session