Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Wold provided an update on the first phase of the Metro Natural Resources Study, reminding <br />the council that the study was intended to satisfy the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5, <br />which states that local governments shall adopt programs to protect natural resources for present <br />and future generations. He noted the focus of tonight's presentation was riparian corridors, <br />wetlands, and wildlife habitat. Mr. Wold reported that Goal 5 allowed for two basic approaches: <br />1) the Safe Harbor approach, and 2) the standard approach. Based on elected officials' input, <br />staff had been using the Safe Harbor approach for properties outside the urban growth boundary <br />but within the Metro Plan boundary. Staff was using the standard approach for property inside the <br />urban growth boundary. Mr. Wold briefly described how the Safe Harbor approach worked, and <br />outlined the standard approach using a diagram provided to the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Wold reviewed the process time line and noted the receipt of extensive public input. He said <br />that the public input improved the plan by clarifying site boundaries and identifying sites that had <br />been developed. Additionally, five or six new sites were identified by the public. Mr. Wold <br />reported that the three planning commissions had also reviewed the study, and their <br />recommendations were reflected in the meeting packet. <br /> <br />Mr. Wold briefly reviewed the site criteria and described their use in site evaluation. He <br />anticipated that eventually, all sites in the inventory would have a recommendation regarding <br />development, protection, or a combination of the two. Mr. Wold invited questions. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey returned to the meeting and assumed the chair. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that the references to "tiers" as used by staff was not consistent with the <br />terminology used in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan (WEWP). She would have found it helpful if <br />the study had employed some of the same terminology, if possible. She questioned if it was too <br />late to change the document. She also found the numbering of the tiers somewhat confusing in <br />terms of the rigor of analysis required. <br /> <br />Noting that there was another large planned unit development in her neighborhood currently under <br />review by the City, Ms. Nathanson said that she had been happy to find the information on the <br />Metro Natural Resources Study in her meeting packet. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked Mr. Wold to discuss the significance of the Goal 5 inventory and how it would <br />affect development once in place. Mr. Wold responded that the inventory itself would allow staff to <br />go through the remaining steps in the process. At the adoption stage, there would likely be new <br />regulations that apply to sites, such as a new overlay zone, as well as incentives for property <br />owners to help achieve some of the objectives of an open space system that reflects community <br />values. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked where Portland Metro was in the Goal 5 process. Mr. Wold said that Portland <br />was slightly behind Eugene. That community was focusing at this point only on riparian corridors <br />and upland habitats, not wetlands. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked if the one-acre criteria for Tier I sites would be adopted statewide. Mr. Wold said <br />no; all the criteria before the council were individual to the local plan. Goal 5 allows communities <br />to develop their own criteria. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 22, 2001 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />