Item B: Ordinance Concerning Goal 5 Natural Resources Study

Home Browse Search

7.S Kluth. Stanley. Concerns about relationship of GoalS regulations to Federal Land Patents in the South Hills. Staff response: Staff consulted with the City Attorney on this issue and determined that for all lands that are currently owned privately, or are owned by the state, county, or city government (as opposed to land owned by the Federal government), police power regulations (Le., regulations for health, welfare and safety) such as those proposed under GoalS, will apply to all non-Federally owned lands equally. 7.6 Matthews. KevinlFriends of Eugene. Mr. Matthews raises several issues related to process and level of protection: A. Process favored individual property owners; web site materials very difficult for broader public interest groups to access; surveys and ESEE analysis should have been opened up to the public; B. with exemptions for private property, conservation areas should be more substantive, setbacks are minimalist; C. significance criteria if applied properly would include additional 1900 acres of habitat and disputes findings of "no ecological significance" for several sites; D. concern about wording of9.8030(21)(c)7. A. Staff response (process favored individual property owners): Staff considered providing the entire Planning Commission and Council packets in one downloadable file on the Goal S website, but the immense size of such a file made doing so impractical. Staff believes that the Goal S web site provided unprecedented access to documents related to the Goal S process throughout the last three years, within the limits of available technology. In addition, staff provided Mr. Matthews and other community interest groups with free copies of the two largest packets when they indicated having difficulty downloading materials from the website. B. Staff response (conservation areas should be more substantive, setbacks are "minimalist"): These issues were raised before the Planning Commission and addressed in detail by staff in a memo to the Planning Commission dated June 7, 200S. Staff believes the setback distances recommended by the Planning Commission, together with provisions for protecting riparian areas that extend beyond the setback, are appropriate to the habitat quality and context of the resources in an urban area and provide an appropriate balancing of the values considered in the Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy (ESEE) analysis. No change recommended. C. Staff response (significance criteria not applied properly, disagrees with findings of no ecological significance): These issues apply to the adoption and application of significance criteria and adoption of the inventory in 2003. The GoalS inventory adoption process included a clear process for submitting objections to the Council's action to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), of which several parties availed themselves. These issues were not raised through that objection process, and the inventory was acknowledged by DLCD and by action of the Land Conservation and Development Commission, acting on objections that were filed on other issues. The City Council has directed staff to conduct additional inventory work in the South Hills to address areas not on the current Goal S inventory. D. Staff response (wording of 9.8030(21)( c)7 .): Staff agrees that this subsection needs clarification. In response to this testimony, staff has recommended revisions to Section 9.8030(21)( c )7.