CC Minutes - 10/24/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(c). He said that while he appreciated Mr. Björklund’s clarification of (a) and (b), he still had a problem enacting them for two reasons: 1) Mr. Björklund said that the City did not have the resources to work through this to figure the conse- quences of the provision. Given that, unless there was a compelling need for the adjustment provision, why put it in since it was not known what the consequences might be? 2) Given that it takes council approval, PPD approval, and an Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) analysis to get a setback to appear on a map, Mr. Kelly said that he had not been con- vinced of the compelling need on top of that to grant a further exception, with the exception of (d). He said that he obviously wanted to comply with the requirement to compensate under federal constitution if there was a complete taking. Mr. Björklund pointed out that the 33 percent threshold had been in the code since 1995 and the City never had anyone use it. He said it was modeled after the West Eugene Wetlands Plan regulations. He said that the current regulations before the council were modeled on what the City had been using successfully in west Eugene for ten years. Mr. Bjorklund continued by saying that the rationale was based the ESEE balancing process, in which it was determined that a resource site as a whole was significant and the resource value of the site as a whole outweighed the value of development that would be added if it was not protected, was done on a resource site level and not on a tax lot by tax lot level. He said that 100 or so analyses were done rather than 2,000 and some. In addition, the regulations were a cross between “one-size-fits-all” and offering a “custom fit.” He repeated that the City did not have the resources to do a lot-by-lot analysis. He said that the 33 percent threshold adjustment was one of the tools the City had to fine-tune protection on a finer detailed level. He added that every example he had seen where the 33 percent threshold fit was on a small lot. Mr. Kelly asked for amendment language at the adoption meeting to remove (a) and (b) and to make other necessary adjustments so it would be logically consistent. He requested a second round to talk about (d). Mr. Pryor said that while realizing he was coming to the discussion somewhat later than other councilors and staff, he thought that the staff recommendations did not weaken Goal 5 and allowed the City some flexibility. He said he was looking for standards in the goal along with flexibility, so that as conditions, perspectives, and situations changed and as information became more available, the City would have the mechanisms to adapt or adjust. Mr. Björklund responded, partly to Mr. Kelly’s concerns. He said that one of the “big picture” issues related to natural resource protection was that one did not compel, through regulation, improvement of habitat that was currently degraded. He said the reason staff included provisions in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan and in this Goal 5 proposal that would allow one to reduce setback distance and increase function was to create the net result of a more functional system. He said that because Eugene was an urban area, a lot of the waterways had been hit hard by human activities. He said that if the City provided an incentive to a property owner to restore habitat on his property by allowing a smaller setback, the biological system would be improved over time. He said that just having a distance with no building and with no plant growth for wildlife or filtering of storm water would not give the full value that the system could provide. He said that if somewhat smaller setbacks were allowed along with increased planting of plants and removal of refuse, a net benefit would be achieved over time. He said that the idea was to create an incentive for restoration. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 6 Work Session