Item 2A: Approval of Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pap6 asked what protection the property currently had if it could not be purchased. Mr. Nystrom said the City had tree-cutting provisions that partially protected the vegetation on the property. The criteria associated with the planned unit development (PUD) process would govern any development on the property, and that included provisions for natural resource protection. Mr. Nystrom said the City had some erosion control regulations that prohibited removal of vegetation within stream corridors. A specific development proposal would trigger more regulations and address the issue of maximizing the develop- ment potential of the site while protecting natural resources. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Nystrom confirmed that the planned unit development process would likely be required for the property. Mr. Pap6 suggested that what Ms. Bettman proposed to achieve might be achieved through that process. Mr. Nystrom concurred. Mr. Pap6 asked if staff tracked the loss of land to the land supply through as a result of the City's purchase of park lands and open spaces. Acting Planning and Development Director Susan Muir indicated the City maintained a buildable lands supply inventory that would be updated through the next periodic review process. She acknowledged the property in question was included in the current residential lands supply. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to extend time for the item by ten minutes. The motion passed, 6:2 Mr. Poling and Ms. Solomon voting no. Mayor Piercy recognized Ms. Taylor. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to review and up- date the Goal 5 wildlife habitat inventory for the south hills, using the safe harbor inven- tory methodology in Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-023-0110 in light of new in- formation concerning the presence of the sensitive species Pileated Woodpecker in sub- stantial areas of the south hills. Ms. Taylor said that the State gave the community a choice of how to approach its inventory. The safe harbor approach allowed for the exclusion of fish but not for the exclusion of significant wildlife habitat. Staff had proceeded with the inventory on the basis that there was no significant wildlife habitat. However, significant habitat performed a life support function for wildlife species listed by the federal government as endangered or threatened, or by the State of Oregon as threatened, endangered, or sensitive species. Ms. Taylor said the State listed the Pileated woodpecker as a sensitive species, so it was her assertion that the City was required to apply the standard inventory process rather than the safe harbor process. Mayor Piercy called for comments and questions on the motion. Responding to a question from Ms. Solomon about the impact of the proposed motion, Mr. Bj6rklund said the City had been working on the Goal 5 process for 15 years, and was within a few months of being done with the Goal 5 work required by periodic review. The motion would add several months to that effort by adding new areas to the inventory. He said the motion, if passed, would not prevent a development proposal for the property from going forward as that process moved much more quickly than the Goal 5 process. He suggested that staff be directed to look at the City's options under the Oregon Administrative Rules for how to revisit the area of concern and determine if, for example, there were other habitat types that should be examined. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 2005 Page 5 Work Session