Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Farr said that what was being proposed appeared to go beyond what was being required at <br />the federal and State level. Mr. Lyle said that was true at this point. He anticipated the federal <br />4(d) rules would change what was expected of cities affected by the salmon listing. Mr. Farr <br />asked about coordination with Lane County for streams that flowed from the city to the county. <br />Mr. Lyle believed that the issue of coordination would be addressed by the Metropolitan Area <br />Natural Resources Study and as the two jurisdictions shared work on the 4(d) rules. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr said that in a worst-case scenario, the result of the interim provisions could be a 40-foot <br />strip of land protecting a one-foot wide stream that flows into a ditch outside the city. Mr. Lyle <br />reminded him that the focus of the provisions was on undeveloped property; developed property <br />would be addressed by the Metropolitan Area Natural Resources Study. Staff would map those <br />vacant properties and show the relationship to stream corridors. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr hoped the council considered optimal application of the provisions that took into <br />consideration the uses around the streams. He said this provisions would remove commercial <br />and residential land from the land supply, and asked for more information about the impact of that <br />on the buildable lands inventory. Ms. Childs indicated that information was forthcoming. <br /> <br />Using a hypothetical situation involving a property in the middle of a protected waterway, Mr. Farr <br />asked if the City would have to purchase the lot to maintain the integrity of the stream, or if <br />condemnation would be the ultimate option. Mr. Lyle said that the open waterways ordinance <br />includes a provision for stream realignment where appropriate, so there were other options <br />beside City purchase or condemnation. Mr. Farr was glad the City was contemplating <br />realignment of some streams, particularly in cases where streams were already disturbed, as it <br />could help maintain the inventory of buildable land. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor preferred Option 1, to direct staff to go forward with the scope of work as outlined, <br />rather than a phased approach. He thought the City would soon need to demonstrate its actions <br />to the federal government. He wanted the work to include an examination of the PUD process, <br />which he believed was a process that facilitated logging, piping, and destruction. He wanted an <br />appeal and hearings process as mentioned by Mr. Kelly. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor suggested an approach that allowed some offsets. For example, the size of the buffer <br />could be offset by a reduction in landscaped area. He requested commission feedback on the <br />suggestion, adding that the administrative rule regarding 33 percent viability could "save the day" <br />and make property more developable. <br /> <br />In response to Mr. Rayor, Mr. Kelly pointed out that Option 2 was Option 1 with a check-in after a <br />couple of months. <br /> <br />Mr. Lyle said that the long-term setbacks provisions would be examined when the 4(d) rules were <br />issued and as part of the Metropolitan Area Natural Resources Study. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey supported the recommendation of the commission. He hoped the City would be <br />specific about how the "takings" issue would be addressed. Regarding the buildable land <br />inventory, he concurred with Mr. Farr about the importance of knowing that information. He noted <br />that Portland was going through a similar process and said it could lead to the expansion of that <br />community's urban growth boundary. He said that the public should be aware of such tradeoffs. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 2000 Page 12 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />