Item 2A: Approval of Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pap6 agreed with the remarks of Mr. Poling with regard to the process used to bring the June 8 motion to the council, saying he did not see how a work session on a property acquisition issue had "morphed" into a major change in the Goal 5 inventory process. After the good work staff had done, he felt "blindsided" by the motion. He commended Planning Division staff for its detailed response to the issues raised on June 8. Mr. Pap6 asked about the cost of implementing Option 3. City Manager Taylor indicated staff would return to the council with an estimate of those costs. Mr. Pap6 said he would have preferred that a majority of councilors requested a work session on the issue raised on June 8 so a more orderly process could have occurred. Mr. Pap6 said he had been lobbied more during the council's discussion of whether to adopt the Safe Harbor or standard approach for upland habitat than on almost any other topic, and he believed the council's contemplated action would create more controversy. He asked about the impact of Ballot Measure 37 on the issue of additional natural resource protection. Mr. Lidz did not know at this time. Mr. Pap6 said the council previously put the concerns expressed by property owners to rest through its adoption of the standard process, and now the council's action would stir them up again. Mr. Pap6 asked how "south hills" was defined, and what the boundaries were. City Manager Taylor acknowledged the uncertainty created by the lack of boundaries and definitions and pledged that the City would stay on schedule, provide timely notice to the public so it could be involved, be clear about the timing of decision points and the scope of the work needed for what was being proposed. In response to Mr. Pap6's question about the boundaries of the study area, Mr. Bj 6rklund said staff would use the South Hills Study definition of the south hills to determine the larger boundary, and within that the Goal 5 sites addressed under the Safe Harbor provisions in 2003. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Bj6rklund indicated staff would look at habitat types but that would not determine the boundaries of the study area. Other habitat types and their functions would be examined as well. Mr. Pap6 expressed concern about the extent of the boundaries involved. Ms. Taylor said that $520,000 sounded like a small amount to her after the discussion about the BRT system. Ms. Taylor agreed with Mr. Pap6 that the issue had been very controversial. She believed that the motion to adopt the Safe Harbor approach had been a tie broken by the mayor. She maintained that the issue was "still simmering" in the community and the controversy had never died down. Ms. Taylor said her June 8 motion arose from community interest in having the council revisit the issue. She supported the motion proposed by Mr. Kelly as she thought the work that would be done would be useful. Mayor Piercy called for a second round of questions and comments. Mr. Kelly spoke to Mr. Pap6's remarks, saying the additional inventory work proposed through Option 3 would allow the City to take a more "fine-grained" approach to different areas; he asserted that a large MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 27, 2005 Page 10 Work Session