Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Lee agreed about the potential for public confusion and suggested that public information <br />staff be asked to help communicate with residents. Mr. Lyle said that staff involved with the <br />project would communicate with staff overseeing the Metropolitan Area Natural Resources Study <br />and the City's public information staff to coordinate public information about the two processes. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee was very supportive of the proposed approach and thanked staff for its effort. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the comments of the DAC and commission. He did not want <br />the proposed time line to slip, and said a year was not insignificant (the period between the <br />Metropolitan Area Natural Resources Study completion and the adoption of interim setbacks); <br />once a waterway was degraded, it could not be "undegraded." He supported the phased <br />concept. He said that 20 feet sounded narrow to him, and he would like explanation of its origin <br />at some point. He said that the alternative of relying on the PUD process was not acceptable to <br />him because he believed it was overly subjective. He wanted a more numerical, objective <br />approach. However, he recognized that not all intermittent and perennial streams were equal in <br />function or quality, and suggested analysis of what could be done at an interim stage for some <br />review, including an appeal procedure, that allowed a property owner to argue for an exemption. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner concurred with Mr. Kelly's remarks. He was concerned that a 20 foot buffer was <br />inadequate. He was concerned that the recommendation limited the prohibitions in the setback <br />areas to structures only, noting the concerns expressed by the DAC about vegetation removal <br />and cut and fill. He wanted a more broad view, saying that the provisions were not only designed <br />to meet federal and State mandates, but community goals as well. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 noted his concern about "piling on" regulations, and asked if the City was proposing to <br />regulate something already regulated by the Division of State Lands or Army Corps of Engineers. <br />Mr. Lyle said that those agencies did not impose buffers or setbacks; they were responsible for <br />wetlands regulation. He believed that the 4(d) rules that would soon be issued by the National <br />Marine Fisheries Service represented the expecation that affected municipalities would closely <br />examine how they were protecting stream corridors, including the application of buffers. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 asked if the City could be a clearing house for people with questions about the <br />multitude of regulations. Mr. Lyle said that the City already flags for property owners where <br />permits were required by other agencies, and attempted not to duplicate existing regulations. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. PapS, Mr. Lyle confirmed that affected property owners would <br />be notified. That notice would include an explanation of how residents could be heard. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 said that 20 feet did not seem like much but it would have an impact on small <br />residential lots. He asked if the ordinance would include an exemption provision. Mr. Lyle said <br />yes. He clarified that the buffers would be measured from the top of the bank, and the impact <br />would vary by size of the affected stream. Exemptions would be similar to the open waterways <br />ordinance and existing watershed protection code language. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Pap8 regarding what approach the City would take for an <br />intermittent stream without an exemption it wished to protect, Mr. Lyle said the City would have to <br />determine whether it wished to purchase the involved property or corridor. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 favored the phased approach. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 2000 Page 11 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />