CC Minutes - 06/08/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to revisit the area of concern and determine if, for example, there were other habitat types that should be examined. Mr. Kelly said the motion came up as a result of research done by the Friends of Eugene (FOE) in regard to the property in question, he believed it stood alone and apart from the earlier discussion. He indicated support for the motion, but not because it would preclude development of the property. He said the motion did not indicate the City would automatically add property to the inventory; there were the Oregon Administrative Rules to consider in that regard. He said the research seemed to indicate the City erred in how it applied the Oregon Administrative Rules to the properties. Mr. Kelly perceived the motion as being direction to staff to double-check its work. He suggested that in the long-mn it could make completion of the Goal 5 work move more smoothly by avoiding a ~last minute blow-up" and possible litigation. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Kelly's remarks. She supported the motion for those reasons. Regarding the issue of opportunity siting versus planned unit developments, Ms. Bettman expressed concern that staff did not rigorously pursue the types of outcomes she was discussing when she discussed opportu- nity siting. She believed it might still be necessary for the City to purchase of a part of the property to ensure any residential development was compatible with the surrounding area and developed at the highest possible densities while the remainder was preserved. She did not think the existing PUD process did enough to protect the community and maximize the City's ability to keep residences within the urban growth boundary. For that reason, she thought another tool was needed, or the PUD process should be strength- ened. Mr. Pap~ said he did not have enough information to act on the motion at this time. He wanted staff verification of the information provided by the residents. He could support something that brought back a process for the council to review. Mr. Lidz asked if the intent of the motion was to add to the current Goal 5 process, or was the work it called for to be completed after that process was done. Ms. Taylor said it was intended to be added to the current process. She maintained the issue was a legal issue. Mr. Pap~ determined from Mr. Bj6rklund that, while he had not reviewed the motion in question, he did not interpret the motion as being restricted to any particular inventory category. Mr. Bj6rklund again emphasized the time that would be added to the process as the City had done no work on the areas in question since 2003. There was a very large body of work needed to add any areas to the inventory before the staff could get recommendations to the Planning Commission on whether to protect them. In addition, staff had not prepared any regulatory tools specific to the South Hills, and the Goal 5 process was not completed if sites were to be protected until the City had adopted and applied protection measures to the sites. Acquisition was one component of that, but not the only one. Mr. Pap~ asked the advantage of getting the Goal 5 inventory completed sooner. Mr. Bj6rklund said the City was operating under a State deadline to complete the inventory by the end of June, and while the City would miss the deadline, it had committed to the State to complete that work as soon after that deadline as possible. The issue would come before the council in September. Mr. Bj6rklund said a delay meant that any protection measures applied to sites in the current adopted inventory would not be applied until much later, and those areas would be exposed to potential impacts during that period. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 2005 Page 6 Work Session