Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/23/03 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall June 23, 2003 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gary Pap~, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. He indicated Ms. Nathanson would be late in arriving. A. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mr. Poling announced he had received a letter from the Association for Metropolitan Sewage Agencies (AMSA) announcing that the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Wastewater Pollution Control Plant had been recognized by the AMSA for its contribution to the field of environmental protection and wastewater treatment. The plant had received the AMSA Platinum Award, which recognized facilities for complete and consistent compliance with their National Pollutant Discharge Permit System permit over five consecutive years (1998-2002). He congratulated the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission for the award. Ms. Nathanson arrived. Mr. Kelly asked for follow-up on a past council inquiry regarding the City's effort to mandate recycling in multi-family units. Ms. Nathanson asked for evidence demonstrating that there was less dry debris, which can potentially pose a fire hazard, as a result of the City's yard debris pick-up program. Ms. Nathanson noted an opinion piece in The Register-Guard calling for the construction of an arena near downtown and asked how the timing of the University of Oregon's site selection process fit in with the City's adoption of the Eugene Downtown Plan update. She did not want to miss any opportunities that might arise in conjunction with that project and did not want to be faced with last-minute decisions. Ms. Solomon had no items. Mr. Pap~ congratulated Parks and Open Space staff for the division's award-winning new logo, designed by Funk Levis and Associates. He commended the quality of the City's Parks and Open Space Program. Mr. Pap~ reiterated his previous request for a river clean-up, perhaps in coordination with Lane County. MINUTES - Eugene City Council June 23, 2003 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Pap~ was happy to learn that the stormwater fee increase implementation had been postponed, and determined from City Manager Dennis Taylor that a work session on the Stormwater Program was scheduled on July 16, 2003. City Manager Taylor indicated the work session would give the council an opportunity to consider the entire program, the impact of suggested reductions to the current program, and the impact of the proposed 50 cent fee increase on the land acquisition program. Mr. Pap~ asked staff to provide him with more information about the reasons leading to the increased cost of providing police at the Veterans Parade. Ms. Taylor was disappointed the fee increase for stormwater was being postponed. She suggested that given the fact that the council initiated the action, it should be the council not the manager that made the decision to postpone the fee implementation. Ms. Taylor was pleased to see the legislature had passed legislation requiring motorists to stop completely at pedestrian crossings and asked what the City planned to do regarding enforcement. Ms. Taylor said that she received several constituent calls about brush clearing that was occurring at the end of West Amazon. She acknowledged that the property owners had the right to clear the land, but she questioned if the property was being monitored for erosion control. Speaking to Ms. Nathanson's earlier comments, Ms. Bettman recalled that the Planning Commission Plus Three had discussed the concept of including the arena at some length in the context of its review of the Downtown Plan update. There had been no support for including an arena in the courthouse area as it was inconsistent with the uses that had been identified as optimal for the site. She recalled that staff had specifically asked the Planning Commission Plus Three not to take formal action on the topic. She asked that the council be provided with the minutes of that discussion. Ms. Bettman highlighted upcoming public input opportunities, noting that on June 30 from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. there would be an open house on the Downtown Plan and the Central Area Transportation Study (CATS) at the Eugene Public Library. Ms. Bettman announced that McKenzie Triad was holding three open houses to hear from the community regarding issues related to the hospital. She suggested that the open houses would be a good chance for residents to provide input on the siting issue. To her knowledge, the hospital was not focusing on the core area of the community. The meetings were on June 25 at the Hilyard Community Center; on June 26 at the Willamalane Adult Center; and on July 1 at the Sheldon Community Center. All the meetings were scheduled from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. Mr. Meisner did not object to an analysis of siting the arena in the courthouse area but agreed the council should be provided with the minutes of the Planning Commission Plus Three's discussion. Mr. Meisner recalled that the council had directed the manager to pursue an interim parks systems development charge on all categories of users, not just residential users, and after reviewing the agenda packet for the Public Works Rates Advisory Committee, which implied the committee would merely consider the issue, he had reminded the manager of that fact. Mr. Meisner noted the stormwater fee was postponed, not canceled. MINUTES - Eugene City Council June 23, 2003 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Meisner reported that at the request of Ms. Taylor, the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations had added consideration of a federal house bill addressing the use of triple trailer trucks on the federal highway system to its next agenda. Mr. Kelly expressed surprise in the delay of the stormwater fee increase because of the council's action initiating the fee increase. He acknowledged the vote did not provide an implementation date, but because it was a council decision he was confused about the deferral without a check- in. In response, City Manager Taylor said that it appeared from his discussions with Mayor Torrey and several other councilors that there was sufficient council concern to warrant a discussion prior to the fee's implementation. The council would have an opportunity to deal with the totality of the program. Mr. Kelly asked for staff outreach to all councilors, not some councilors. City Manager Taylor reminded the council it had several items to take action on later tonight, including the fiscal year 2004 budget. Several of the items were time-sensitive, and some of the items had been postponed from past meetings due to a lack of time. Mayor Torrey said that work was progressing on the Army Corps of Engineers' Delta Ponds project. A meeting of interested parties had been held, and work on the removal of invasive species would begin in late August, with the project to be completed by late summer 2004. Mayor Torrey reported that the Oregon House of Representatives' vote on the bridge bill was 29 to 7, and he anticipated it would pass in the Senate and be signed immediately by Governor Ted Kulongowski. B.WORK SESSION: Remanded Needed Housing Code Provisions Ordinance A: May 2003 Ordinance Concerning Remanded Needed Housing Provisions; and Ordinance B: Planning Commission Recommended Ordinance Concerning Remanded Needed Housing Provisions Planning Division Director Jan Childs introduced the item, noting that Emily Jerome of the City Attorney's Office and Teresa Bishow of the Planning Division were present for the item. Ms. Childs reported that the Planning Commission had reviewed the needed housing provisions, held a public hearing, and forwarded a recommendation to the council. Ms. Childs noted that there were two draft ordinances before the council. One reflected the council's direction to reinstate all the remanded provisions (Ordinance A), and the other reflected the commission's recommendation (Ordinance B). Ms. Jerome reminded the council that in February 2001, the City adopted the new Land Use Code Update (LUCU), which was subsequently appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) and remanded back to the City. The basis of the remand included the needed housing provisions before the council. The LUBA appeal included three general arguments regarding needed housing. The appellants argued that about 100 provisions in the code were not clear and objective; LUBA remanded 23 of the provisions for reconsideration by the City. The appellants argued that some of the provisions made it impossible for needed housing to be developed in violation of the statutes, and LUBA had remanded one provision on that basis. The third basis for the remand was that one provision subjected needed housing development to unreasonable cost and delay. MINUTES - Eugene City Council June 23, 2003 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Jerome said that the council had a choice for each of the remanded provisions. It could either rewrite the provision to address the problem or delete the provision as it related to needed housing. The council directed staff to rewrite each provision. The City Attorney's Office drafted an ordinance it believed would accomplish that. Ms. Jerome noted that some of the provisions remanded for needed housing were not in the materials before the council because they were also remanded for goal 5, 9, or 10 problems. Ms. Jerome indicated that both draft ordinances reflected changes that were based on the public testimony. The only difference between the two ordinances were the inclusion of provisions in Ordinance A that the Planning Commission did not recommend based on concerns it heard from the Planning Division staff. Staff had been concerned that some of the provisions, in their clear and objective form, were not desirable from a policy standpoint. Ms. Jerome emphasized the importance of staying within the scope of the remand from LUBA. She invited questions. Mayor Torrey solicited a first round of comments and questions. Ms. Bettman said that the result of LUBA's remand in some instances was a change in City policy or the elimination of the policy. She asked what party, the City or the developer, would be liable if the City relied on the Oregon Revised Statutes administrative rule certifying engineers and there was a miscalculation leading to a landslide that affected housing around a development site. She asked if the change in language increased or decreased the City's liability. Speaking to Ms. Bettman's initial remarks, Ms. Jerome said that it was the intent of staff and the City Attorney's Office to retain the council's policies. She asked that Ms. Bettman point out those inconsistencies. Regarding Section 9.6710(4), Ms. Jerome said that the references to Oregon licensed engineers, Oregon licensed civil engineers with geologic experience, etc., were not new references. They were included in the Land Use Code Update. They were the professionals to do the analysis for all housing. In the update, there was a three-tiered process that called for such experts to submit information to the City that it would then review to ensure the development was safe. The provision was remanded, not for not being clear and objective, but rather because LUBA concluded it resulted in unreasonable cost and delay. Ms. Jerome said that the City then attempted to provide an alternative provision that achieved the same outcome without the unreasonable cost and delay. The professionals cited would submit assurances instead of an application for the City to evaluate. In terms of liability, Ms. Jerome believed the approach lessened the City's liability but was unsure it alleviated that liability completely. Ms. Bettman asked if the professionals in question were bonded. Ms. Jerome believed that was the case. Ms. Bettman asked that the answer be provided to the council before it moved forward. Ms. Bettman referred to Section 9.6815 on page 15 of the agenda packet, which included struck text that had attempted to address the protection of natural resources and water features. The new language only discussed compacting at a 15-degree slope. She thought that the provision did not satisfy the council's intent. She asked if the Planning Commission believed that other City policies addressed those natural resource protection issues. She flagged the section as a policy issue. Mr. Kelly indicated general satisfaction with the ordinances, given the constraints placed on the City by LUBA. Referring to Section 9.6805 of Ordinance B regarding the dedication of public ways, Mr. Kelly said that the text pointed to a table, but the table addressed only streets, whereas MINUTES - Eugene City Council June 23, 2003 Page 4 Work Session the section of the code involved addressed off-street, public rights-of-ways, such as bicycle and pedestrian ways. He was concerned by the lack of guidance. Ms. Jerome said that the table would be modified to include sidewalks. Mr. Kelly questioned whether that was sufficient, pointing out that there were places in the code that required public ways that would be pedestrian-only pass-throughs, such as from the end of a cul-de-sac to an adjoining streets. Ms. Jerome said that staff would respond to the question with a memorandum. Mr. Kelly referred to the second page of the Agenda Item Summary, page 8 of the meeting packet, which mentioned the commission's recommendation that the requirement for the provision of transit facilities for needed housing be deleted. He asked what obligations the developer had when following the discretionary path of the code. While he understood the recommendation, Mr. Kelly was concerned that a large planned unit development going through the needed housing path would have no need to provide accommodations for transit. Ms. Jerome indicated Planning Division staff would follow up. Mr. Pap~ indicated his support for Ordinance B, saying he thought the Planning Commission's recommendations were appropriate. He asked how staff responded to Bill Kloos' general statement that the standards in the LUCU were pushing developers to the discretionary path as opposed to the clear and objective path. Ms. Jerome disagreed with Mr. Kloos' statement. She said that it was difficult in certain cases to turn what had been a potentially discretionary standard into something clear and objective without making it overly strict. For that reason, in many cases, staff chose to retain the discretionary language but moved it into the adjustment process. She said staff had reviewed the provisions with the thought of avoiding extra cost and delay, and used the Planning Commission and the public to test the results. Mr. Pap~ asked if there had been any discussion with developers. Ms. Childs indicated not directly; the commission received communications from Roxie Cuellar of the Lane County Home Builders Association as well as from Mr. Kloos. Mr. Pap~ said he would have appreciated direct outreach to developers and builders about what would increase community housing costs. Mr. Meisner expressed appreciation for the work done by the Planning Commission and staff. He asked how the proposed set of amendments fit in with the thrust of the LUCU. Ms. Childs believed that Ordinance B fit very well with the overall thrust of the Land Use Code. She added that had been a concern for the commission. Mr. Meisner indicated tentative support for Ordinance B. Mayor Torrey called for a second round of questions. Ms. Bettman referred to Section 9.6845(2), which staff and the commission proposed to delete from Ordinance A. She objected to the deletion as the provision would apply to very few developments and she thought it should be retained. Ms. Bettman addressed the issue of the four-minute response, saying that dropping the requirement would facilitate development outside a four-minute response time and then create pressure for the construction of a new fire station, incurring new taxpayer costs as there was no systems development charge for new fire stations. She wanted to retain the provision. Ms. Bettman said that it was her conclusion that the State statute related to needed housing was to ensure that municipalities provided sufficient zoning opportunities for such things as Iow-income and farm worker housing. However, the City had not defined locally what needed housing was. MINUTES - Eugene City Council June 23, 2003 Page 5 Work Session She said that at this time, the definition of needed housing was so broad as to include expensive large houses on five-acre lots in the south hills. Ms. Taylor asked for a definition of needed housing, and an explanation of what was not needed housing. She thought needed housing was intended to provide for Iow- and medium-income housing that would otherwise not be built. Ms. Jerome said that the State defined the term, and the City was not allowed to define it otherwise, except on a case-by-case basis using the exception process under State Goal 2, Land Use Planning. She reviewed the State definition, and said that case law resulting from a case involving the City of Ashland had indicated that high-end housing was also needed housing. Ms. Childs said that the issue of needed housing was examined through the Housing Needs Analysis done for the City's Residential Lands Study. That analysis involved all price and income levels. The City needed to provide for higher-priced housing as well as Iow-income housing. She said that the phrase had initially been narrowly defined but through the years, different interest groups had managed to get manufactured housing on individual lots and migrant farm worker housing included in the law as well. Mr. Kelly asked if the requirement for the four-minute emergency response time was included in the discretionary path. Ms. Jerome recalled that it was. She added that all the criteria were derived from the criteria applied to regular housing, and there was one provision related to general availability of services. Mr. Kelly requested a memorandum following up on his question. To the degree that it could be clear and objective, he wanted to provide the same provision in the needed housing path. Ms. Childs said that the criterion in question was very subjective. Mr. Kelly understood the objections raised by the Planning Commissioners to adoption of the four-minute response time map. He was trying to think of another approach. Ms. Jerome said that LUBA gave the City two options related to the provision, either to adopt a clear way of calculating the four-minute response time was, or adopt a map. Mr. Pap~ wanted the council to consider the long-term impacts of its decisions on the cost of housing in Eugene. Mayor Torrey called for a third round of questions and comments. It was Ms. Bettman's interpretation of the State statute regarding needed housing that it was up to the City to determine what kind of housing was needed in the community. She asked how that could be done. Ms. Jerome said that Eugene could do so by taking an exception under the State Goal 2 process. That involved an amendment to the City's comprehensive plan. She indicated she would provide the council with a memorandum on the topic. C.WORK SESSION: Eugene Goal 5 Riparian and Upland Inventory Neil Bj0rklund of the Planning and Development Department joined the council for the item. Ms. Childs and Ann Siegenthaler of the Planning and Development Department were also present. Mr. Bj0rklund introduced Mark Radabaugh from the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), who was present to answer questions about the State's rules. Mr. Bj0rklund referred the council to a map showing the current inventory as recommended by the Planning Commission and a second map illustrating the probable impact of applying the safe harbor approach to the Goal 5 inventory. A third map was provided to the council showing all the land in the inventory that was publicly owned. MINUTES - Eugene City Council June 23, 2003 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Bj0rklund reported that a safe harbor inventory would be based on data provided by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) regarding fish bearing streams. Regarding the data provided by the ODFW, Mr. Bj0rklund clarified that most of the identified fish-bearing waterways had not been surveyed for the presence of fish. Under the safe harbor approach, upland sites included on the inventory would be only those sites that contained a listed, threatened, or endangered species, or that contained threatened habitat. He said that Eugene's upland sites contain no such features, and under the safe harbor approach none would be on the inventory. Mayor Torrey called for council questions. Ms. Solomon determined from Mr. Bj0rklund that the areas outlined in red on the map were known to have fish. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Bj0rklund said that if the City chose the safe harbor approach to the uplands sites, those sites would be removed from the inventory and would no longer be considered significant. Mr. Kelly determined from Mr. Radabaugh that if the safe harbor approach was taken, the City would have to do a complete survey of the community's riparian areas and waterways to determine if a stream was fish bearing. Mayor Torrey called for a first round of comments. Ms. Nathanson suggested that one could argue that the community found the uplands significant and acknowledged that through its stream corridor acquisitions and protections, ridegeline acquisitions, erosion control and tree cutting ordinances. She suggested that the difference was one of significance with a capital "S" and significance with a lower-case "s." Mr. Bj0rklund agreed. He said that the word "significant" had a specific legal meaning and purpose in Goal 5. The council could determine it was assigning significance to certain sites, but that did not mean they did not have value or wildlife habitat functions. The community had the option to determine what it wanted to assign the significance status to and carry through the process. Mr. Bj0rklund noted that the DLCD did not recommend using the safe harbor approach to waterways containing listed species. That included the Willamette River and some of its side tributaries. Ms. Bettman reminded the council that the inventory was a legal issue. The City had a remand from LUBA regarding the code that awaited the outcome of the inventory. If the council followed through with the staff recommendation to apply the safe harbor approach to the uplands, it would be inventorying 994 acres, half of which was the Willamette River. There would be no protections for the south hills. She noted that 1,000 acres of the uplands sites were public lands and some were near the ridgeline trail. She did not believe the safe harbor approach would protect anything. She believed that the City had already rolled back code provisions for trees and other natural resources and she did not think the City Council should pretend the uplands sites would be protected in another way. Ms. Bettman asked how many sites in the inventory would be taken off because of testimony that they were not significant or had already been developed. Mr. Bj0rklund said that no sites would be dropped in their entirety, only portions of sites. Ann Siegenthaler of the Planning Division estimated that 50 parcels were reviewed following the latest round of testimony, and 30 to 40 of those sites warranted an adjustment to the inventory. Responding to a question from Ms. MINUTES - Eugene City Council June 23, 2003 Page 7 Work Session Bettman, Mr. Bj0rklund indicated that staff had deferred making the adjustments to the Planning Commission's recommendation until it was aware of the direction the council would take. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman suggesting that the staff recommendation should be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration, Ms. Jerome said that was a policy question for the council, not a legal question. The City Attorney's Office felt confident the City could argue that the Planning Commission process led the council to consider the changes before it. Ms. Taylor did not understand the staff recommendation for the application of the safe harbor approach when a past council had already voted against it. Mr. Bj0rklund said that the council's decision to apply the standard process to the entire inventory dated back to the late 1980s and was reaffirmed by a recent council. The staff recommendation was based on testimony received in the two public hearings, which produced a considerable amount of new information, and also related to the issue of staff resources, which was not an issue when the initial decision was taken. Ms. Taylor asked what would happen if the City could not complete the inventory by the State deadline. Noting that the metropolitan area had already received one extension for its periodic review work, Mr. Radabaugh said that the Department of Land Conservation and Development was obliged to hold a public hearing if the area went over the deadline and consider its options, such as another extension, sanctions, or the interim application of the safe harbor approach, etc. He clarified, in response to a follow-up question, that he was not suggesting that the City had no choice but to apply the safe harbor approach; the department merely wanted the metropolitan area to move quickly to adopt an inventory. He said that most of the work done by the metropolitan area to this point involved the standard process. Mr. Radabaugh added that the DLCD "sees changes as delays." Ms. Taylor suggested that staff could do what was required in the time remaining if the council decided to take the standard approach. Mr. Bj0rklund said that the safe harbor inventory could probably be prepared in about the same time frame as the standard process inventory. Mr. Bj0rklund referred the council to a table entitled Goal 5: Safe Harbor Process and Protection Measures illustrating the differences between the standard and safe harbor approaches. Ms. Taylor asked why staff was recommending the safe harbor approach. Mr. Bj0rklund said that staff was recommending the approach because of a change in the circumstances around the inventory, staffing levels, cost, and the deadline set by the State. He said that staff wanted to get the needed work done without sacrificing the essential components of the ecosystem that were being addressed. It was staff's opinion that the water system was the most important part of the habitat system being considered, which was why staff recommended focusing on the water system in the uplands and throughout the remainder of the inventory area. Responding to a question from Mr. PapS, Ms. Childs confirmed that the Board of County Commissioners would have to adopt that portion of the City's inventory located outside the city limits but inside the urban growth boundary. The County was taking the safe harbor approach to Goal 5 resources in its jurisdiction. Mr. Pap8 asked Mr. Bj0rklund to discuss other possible approaches to protect waterways in the south hills. Mr. Bj0rklund said that waterways could be protected by the Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources process, focusing on conveyance and water quality. That could occur outside MINUTES - Eugene City Council June 23, 2003 Page 8 Work Session the Goal 5 process as long as Goal 5 issues were not addressed as part of that process. Those waterways not protected by the Goal 5 process may be potentially protected by the Goal 6 process. Mr. Pap8 suggested that the City could protect such waterways using local ordinances. Ms. Jerome agreed. Mr. Pap8 asked Mr. Bj0rklund to speak to criticisms that the City's wetlands inventory should be sufficient. Mr. Bj0rklund said that a Goal 5 inventory for the entire community outside the boundaries of that inventory was a legal requirement. He said that there was no safe harbor option for wetlands. Ms. Solomon determined from Mr. Bj0rklund that sites previously determined not to be wetlands for the purposes of conservation through the West Eugene Wetlands Plan would not be included in the Goal 5 inventory because of the evaluative process they had already gone through. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly regarding what advantage existed in adopting the safe harbor approach to uplands if the time needed to complete the inventory was the same, Mr. Bj0rklund said that the concern was the completion of the entire process. The City would exceed the deadline for the adoption of the inventory and the next steps. If the City used the standard process for all sites, that would require more Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) analysis for each, creating a much longer time frame to completion. Mr. Kelly suggested that the issue would be one of the degree of delay as the City would be out of compliance either way. Mr. Kelly appreciated staff pointing out that some stream corridors could be protected through the Goal 6 process, but he questioned whether the political will existed to do so, given that the proposed stormwater fee increase might not be implemented. Mr. Kelly said that he had heard that part of the reason for the changed recommendation was to avoid litigation; he believed that litigation would occur either way. He thanked Mr. Bj0rklund and Ms. Siegenthaler for their hard work throughout the Goal 5 process and thought it sad that the current staff recommendation threw out years of staff and Planning Commission work. Mr. Meisner asked staff to secure the council copies of the maps mounted on the wall, and a copy of the 2(d) option map. He also asked staff to provide the council with information about adjustments to the inventory that had been made to this point, specifically to confirm the numbers and acreage. Mayor Torrey solicited a second round of comments. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Kelly that a change in direction would be a waste of time and money. She said that in terms of the upland waterways, there was no automatic protection for them as the degree of protection had not been determined and the City did not know if the waterways qualified for protection. Only those areas marked on the map in red would be protected. She did not want the council to waste time pretending that there were other processes to protect those resources. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Radabaugh said that DLCD's contract for the inventory was with the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG), working on behalf of the metropolitan jurisdictions, not with the City of Eugene. It was LCOG's obligation to carry out the contract using the standard process. None of the contracts addressed the safe harbor approach. He said that nothing in the contract discussed what the cities eventually adopted. He did not MINUTES - Eugene City Council June 23, 2003 Page 9 Work Session know if there was a City obligation to the DLCD. Ms. Bettman asked what would happen if a majority of the City Council decided to go with the safe harbor approach: Where was the contract for that? Responding to a question from Mr. PapS, Mr. Radabaugh reported that in 1996 the Land Conservation and Development Commission had adopted the new Goal 5 rule, which introduced the safe harbor approach. Since that rule was adopted after the City adopted its work program in 1995, it was entitled to take advantage of the rule. Ms. Nathanson questioned whether the City was actually "tossing out years of work" if the council chose to take the safe harbor approach. She asked if the work that had been done had been utilized in the Parks and Open Space acquisition process or if the Parks and Open Space Division staff had started its work from scratch. Mr. Bj0rklund said he did know enough to answer the question. Ms. Nathanson thought the council's goal should be to protect properties that were obviously valuable and get properties without such values off the table, leaving only those requiring further analysis. She asked if the standard approach for all upland properties would force new protections on those properties. Mr. Bj0rklund said that was one of the underpinnings to the staff recommendation. He reminded the council that when it considered the initial inventory in 1993, the protection provisions for the upland inventory included some minor changes to tree cutting provisions that could be accomplished in another way, narrow street standards that had been addressed through the Local Street Plan, and ridgeline acquisitions that had been accomplished. In response to Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Bj0rklund said he did not think that the work that had been done was being thrown away. He suggested the recommendation was a natural evolution of that work. He questioned whether the additional work required for the standard process would result in anything different being accomplished. Mr. Bj0rklund said that staff and the Planning Commission had discussed the need to focus the inventory because of limited staff resources, the pending deadline, and property owners who were upset by the uncertainty of the process. That uncertainty would be increased by the time required to complete the standard process. Mr. Bj0rklund said the commission discussed a compromise approach that got it to the same outcome with less work. For that reason, the staff recommended the split approach. The recommendation was based on the concept that while there was value in the forested areas, the City was more likely to protect waterways through regulation. The City's active parks acquisition program meant that much of the forested area in the uplands had been acquired already. He suggested that focusing on those areas the City was most likely to protect would get it to the desired end with less work. Ms. Nathanson said that it appeared that staff was not recommending safe harbor as a complete solution due to the length of the survey process and the fact that protections could be more rigid through that process. She thought the staff recommendation a reasonable compromise. Ms. Taylor noted that the City used both tax money and volunteer hours on the inventory. She said that should not be discounted. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Bj0rklund confirmed that there were no property protections adopted at the time the inventory was adopted; however, there could be protections applied later on, and that was what the property owners did not know and were concerned about. MINUTES - Eugene City Council June 23, 2003 Page 10 Work Session Ms. Bettman believed that the DLCD's contract with LC©G would have to change if the City Council adopted the staff recommendation. Mr. Radabaugh said that the contract was between the department and LC©G. He said that the contract would not be amended now given the pending deadline. He did not know if the question was appropriate as the burden of the cost of the transitional work required would not be provided by the State. Ms. Bettman requested information about the financial impact of the staff recommendation on the City. Ms. Bettman did not think that throwing away the work that had been done was as significant as throwing away the south hills, as the staff recommendation meant that there would be no protections in the south hills at all. Ms. Nathanson pointed out that the City had already acquired dozens of sites and hundreds of acres in the south hills and had plans to acquire more. There were waterside stream protections and erosion controls to protect the resource values of the south hills. She believed that the discussion was coming down to the question of whether the City was trying to ensure it complied with State standards related to natural resource values, or was it trying to place a moratorium on all development so that no one would live in the south hills anymore. Mr. Pap8 thought Mr. Bj0rklund's remarks about the changes had taken place occurred were well- taken. He thought it appropriate that private property owners have certainty about the future of their properties, and he thought the safe harbor approach addressed the testimony received. Mr. PapS, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to direct the City Manager to prepare a revised ordinance to apply the standard Goal 5 process to all riparian sites and to the mapped waterways within upland sites (as shown on map presented at June 23, 2003, work session), while applying safe harbor provisions to the remainder of the upland sites. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion by adopting the Planning Commission recommendation and map. Ms. Bettman reiterated her previous concerns about the lack of protections for natural resource areas in the south hills that she believed would result from adoption of the staff recommendation. She said there was pressure to develop the south hills, and a certain amount of development in the area was acceptable to her. She did not want to destroy natural resources worthy of protection if a way existed to protect them. She believed that if the council accepted the recommendation, it should have another public hearing because it was her perception that the public had not testified on the safe harbor process but on the process that had already been completed. Mr. Pap8 believed that the City had begun efforts to protect natural resources in the south hills and he thought that would continue. He added that the only way to protect such lands was to buy them, not to regulate them so that owners could not use them. He said that the inventory had already created considerable community upheaval, and he would not support the amendment. Mr. Kelly supported the amendment because of his confidence in the ability of the Planning Commission. Ms. Taylor supported the amendment. She found the Planning Commission's recommendation sensible and well thought out, and it was based on years of study and work by citizens and scientists. She thought the council should follow the recommendation. Ms. Taylor said that she MINUTES - Eugene City Council June 23, 2003 Page 11 Work Session thought the council made the right decision when it rejected the safe harbor approach. She acknowledged the concerns of property owners but pointed out that the City was not proposing to take anyone's land. Ms. Taylor called for a council work session about tax waivers for conservation easements. The amendment to the motion failed 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman, voting yes. The main motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting no. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES - Eugene City Council June 23, 2003 Page 12 Work Session