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

Home Browse Search

recommendation and disappointment in the ordinance before the council. He said the perception that placing a site on the inventory immediately removed it from buildable lands was not accurate, as Mr. Bj6rklund had explained earlier; it merely moved the site to the next step for analysis. Mr. Kelly commented that a vote for the ordinance eliminated all of the upland sites, except stream corridors, from any further analysis and short-circuited the possibility of developing a mix of regulations and incentives to allow those lands to be developed more sensitively, compactly, and in harmony with the natural environment. He said the difference between the ordinance and the Planning Commission's recommendation resulted in a reduction of the number of acres studied from 3,500 acres to 1,100 acres. He said of the 1,100 acres to be further analyzed, 40 percent was the Willamette River. Ms. Bettman remarked that the staff recommendation to exclude the upland sites from further study was a practical move in the face of the political reality that a majority of the council was unwilling to protect those sites, even with further study. She questioned whether the public had an opportunity to adequately address the ordinance through the public process, as it was substantially different, in terms of the inventory and process, from the ordinance considered at the public hearings. She stated her objection for the record. Ms. Bettman said she doubted whether the uplands would be protected in any other way and referred to the council's recent review of the Stormwater Program and the movement to eliminate funding for stormwater corridor acquisition. She also noted provisions in the Land Use Code that protected natural resources that had been rolled back. She said that the development industry was advocating for expansion of the UGB because of lack of developable land at the same time that protections within the UGB were being eliminated and she feared the result would be sprawling development beyond the UGB and a devalued natural environment within the UGB. She thanked staff for its work and reiterated she would not support the motion. Ms. Taylor said she would vote against the motion, not because she did not want to adopt a Goal 5 inventory, but because the ordinance before the council was not the right approach. She asked if the council could take action if there had not been a public hearing on the specific ordinance before it. Ms. Jerome said that it was legal and the changes presented by staff were a result of testimony received during the public hearing. She said Goal 1, dealing with process, did not require the council to adopt what it was originally presented with, but staff would notify the State of changes made during the process. Ms. Taylor said she did not think the changes came from the public process and stated her preference for the Planning Commission's recommendation, which came from the input of hundreds of citizens. Mr. Pap~ remarked that it had taken eleven years to reach the point at which the council was, and his opinion about the ordinance changed drastically based upon testimony, e-mail, and other information contained in the record as part of the process. He felt the process had been MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 5 Work Session