Posted by Kevin Matthews on August 03, 2000 at 16:11:51:
When Interim Setbacks for Key Waterways goes before the City Council next Monday, August 7, I hope the City Council will look at it more seriously than the Planning Commission did.
Here are some quotes from the staff summary report to the Planning Commission:
"These provisions would provide an effective and consistent approach to all land use types."
"These impacts do not reduce the supply of buildable acres below 20 year requirements."
"PUDs are the most effective existing provisions other than the Waterside Protection provisions in effect in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan area. Historically, PUDs have only been effective in providing setbacks when maintenance access was needed (10-15 ft on one side of channel) or for protecting significant vegetation (trees). Water quality and wildlife habitat have not been the basis for requiring setbacks."
"The PUD decision making process requires competing interests (ie, "needed housing" versus protection of natural resources) to be "balanced". This discretionary nature of PUDs creates uncertainty and could diminish their effectiveness in securing setbacks. PUDs are limited to residential developments."
"The Metro-wide Natural resources Study will be processed over the next 18-24 months. Adoption of implementing measures will follow that process and could be implemented for the 2003 construction season."
And some questions:
If we take these very factual comments from staff as a starting point, does it seem reasonable to rely on the PUD process to protect crucial waterway buffers, needed for water quality and wildlife habitat? Is it responsible to rely on historically ineffective PUDs until the enactment of some hypothetical provisions of the Metro Natural Resources Study, that _might_ take effect starting in 2003?
How (and when) will LUCU specifically help to protect waterways buffer areas? Are there LUCU provisions that provide waterway buffer protection which is broadly applicable and independent of the Metro Natural Resources Study?
The South Hills Study provisions in the current LUCU, as with other refinement plans, are only partial extracts, which don't include anything on waterways or buffers. LUCU (9.25) has a pretty cool definition for the Natural Resource Zone, but as it is "intended to protect outstanding resource areas identified in adopted plans," isn't there an additional process required before it actually applies?
The EPA has just been ordered by the federal court to require the State of Oregon to stop delaying Clean Water Act enforcement. Wouldn't it make sense for our Eugene to move to immediately implement the urgently needed waterway buffers voluntarily, based on our own collective good sense?
In light of the points established by the City staff analysis, does the 3 to 2 split vote of the Planning Commission against interim setback provisions really make sense?
Best wishes,
Kevin Matthews
On 8/3/00 at 8:16 AM, LYLE Les A wrote:] Peg, Rob - below is a summary of the discussion that Planning commission had
] with respect to the establishment of interim setbacks on open waterways.
] This is an attachment to the agenda item summary for the Council discussion
] on August 7 regarding whether to proceed with the workprogram to establish
] interim buffers. The Council packets should be available late today and you
] can pick up a copy at the City Managers Office.
]
] With respect to your question Peg, the establishment of buffers was part of
] the overall basin planning proposal, however, the committee did not work on
] the explicit approach by which those buffers would be established. The
] basin planning proposal included an element for the protection and
] restoration of Open Waterways. The proposal recognized that an interim no
] fill/no pipe ordinance had been adopted for open waterways and that buffers
] should be addressed through the Metro Natural Resources study and
] potentially an interim buffer ordinance could be established as a bridge
] until the NR study is adopted. So, the recommendation of the planning
] commission is not inconsistent since there is still an expectation that the
] NR study will address buffering and that LUCU will have new provisions to
] protect natural resources in the interim. Also, keep in mind that an
] interim setbacks would only apply to vacant, developable properties within
] the City limits. In addition, the establishment of the interim setbacks
] would be a land use action and to adopt must be through a formal land use
] adoption process. An ordinance would likely not be in place before late
] spring 2001.
]
] Peg, let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks Les L
] -----------------------------------------------------------
] ATTACHMENT C
] Feedback and Recommendation from
] Planning Commission Work Session, August 1, 2000
]
] Background
] On August 1, 2000, staff presented and discussed with the Planning
] Commission the preliminary evaluation results for applying interim setbacks
] along open waterways. This attachment is a summary of their feedback and
] recommendation.
]
] Commissioners Present: Jon Belcher Robert Conrad
] Art Farley Adell McMillan
] Ellen Wojahn
]
] Commissioners Absent: Peter Bartel Anne Marie Levis
]
] General Feedback
] * Existing PUD provisions and Draft LUCU provisions will provide
] adequate protection for the sensitive headwater streams in the south hills.
] If those waterways are the Council's primary issue, rely on existing PUD
] provisions and LUCU.
] • The areas of higher potential risk, due to less effective land use
] provisions (subdivisions, SR) for buffering open waterways, are located in
] the valley bottom areas. The primary tool used in these settings is
] easements for maintenance access that are generally required on only one
] side of the waterway. The condition of these waterways is generally lower
] than those in the south hills due to channelization and existing development
] impacts. If those waterways are the Council's main concern, interim
] setbacks may be an option.
] • Given the effectiveness of PUDs in providing setbacks and the extent
] to which they will be applied in the south hills, the benefits gained by
] applying interim setbacks in the remaining areas of the city do not appear
] to justify the estimated cost for processing and adopting them.
] • With the draft inventory of the Metro-wide Natural Resources Study
] (NR Study) going to the planning commissions for public hearing in September
] 2000, adding a new City process (interim setbacks) would be confusing to the
] public.
] • Not enough bang for the buck. The interim approach relies on the
] provisions of the Waterside Protection overlay zone. If the NR Study
] results in a different approach, then another public notice and adoption
] process would be necessary.
] • Setbacks would help provide additional open space; however, open
] space was not the primary objective of this proposal.
]
] Recommendation
] With a 3 to 2 vote, the Planning Commission recommended to the Council
] Option 2, as outlined in the AIS, which is not to pursue interim setbacks
] but rely on existing PUD provisions and LUCU until the Metro-wide Natural
] Resources Study is complete. One of the commissioners voting in opposition
] indicated, if the primary objective of the interim setbacks is to protect
] primarily the headwater streams, then interim buffers should not be
] established as the PUD and LUCU provisions are adequate..
]
] > -----Original Message-----
] > From: HEINKEL Carol A
] > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 7:43 AM
] > To: WAITE Peg (SMTP); Rob Zako
] > Cc: TAYLOR Betty L; Bob Baldwin; Bob Diskin; Bob Rosen; David Monk;
] > Kevin Matthews; Laurie Bernstein; Margaret Robertson; Milt Krueger; LYLE
] > Les A
] > Subject: RE: Alert: Interim Setbacks for Key Waterways
] >
] > Peg, I am passing your question over to Les Lyle for a response. He has
] > been more directly involved in this process than I have and it is more
] > complex than as presented below, although I believe Rob is correct about
] > the vote. Anyway, Les will take it from here. Thanks for checking in.
] > Carol
] >
] > -----Original Message-----
] > From: M. Waite [SMTP:momwaite@nu-world.com]
] > Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 9:53 PM
] > To: Rob Zako
] > Cc: Betty Taylor; Bob Baldwin; Bob Diskin; Bob Rosen; David
] > Monk; Kevin Matthews; Laurie Bernstein; Margaret Robertson; Milt Krueger;
] > HEINKEL Carol A
] > Subject: Re: Alert: Interim Setbacks for Key Waterways
] >
] >
] > Carol,
] > Is this true? Does this affect what our DAC has done?
] > Peg Waite
] >
] >
] >
] > On 8/2/00 at 11:20 AM, Rob Zako wrote:
] >
] > ] Dear Friends,
] > ]
] > ] I heard a report that the Eugene Planning Commission voted
] > 3-2 on Tuesday
] > ] to recommend that the Eugene City Council NOT adopt any
] > interim setbacks
] > ] to protect key waterways. (Peter Bartel and Anne Marie
] > Levis were absent.)
] > ]
] > ] As I understand it, the EPC felt that key waterways in the
] > south part of
] > ] town are already protected by the South Hills Study and
] > other refinement
] > ] plans. Key waterways in the north part of town are
] > unprotected, but these
] > ] are deemed to be of less value. The EPC felt that the
] > price tag of
] > ] roughly $80,000 was too high to protect these key
] > waterways.
] >
] > ...
] >
] > ] Regards,
] > ] Rob
] > ]
] > ]
]
Citizens Nature Project! http://www.NatureProject.org/nature.html
Neighbors online! http://www.SoutheastNeighbors.org/sen_forum.html
====================================================================
To join the Southeast Neighbors general membership email list, just
send email to "majordomo@designcommunity.com", and in the body of
the message say exactly: subscribe members
====================================================================
To join the Citizens Nature Project discussion email list, just
send email to "majordomo@designcommunity.com", and in the body of
the message say exactly: subscribe nature
====================================================================
Kevin Matthews, matthews@artifice.com
President, Southeast Neighbors - http://www.SoutheastNeighbors.org
541-345-7421 vox, 541-345-7438 fax, P.O. Box 1588, Eugene, OR 97440
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
Artifice, Inc. ...the way of architecture
ArchitectureWeek.com GreatBuildings.com DesignCommunity.com
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +