Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/28/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall June 28, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Pat Fart, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A. West Eugene Wetlands Plan Amendments City Manager Johnson introduced Planning Director Jan Childs, Planning and Development Department Director Paul Farmer, and Senior Planner Neil Bj6rklund, who provided a presentation on the amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. Mr. Bj6rklund said that he would take each of the sites addressed in the staff memorandum and answer council questions for each one. Making a few initial remarks, he stressed the importance of distinguishing between undesignated and designated sites. He noted that the Hyundai site was undesignated. Moving on, Mr. Bj~rklund noted that the only time filling was allowed in a wetland was when it was designated for development. Regarding the criteria for development approval, Mr. Bj~rklund said that when they were adopted by Lane County and the City of Eugene, the elected officials specifically indicated that room for judgement be left in the criteria. He said that there was a grey area within which the council could make decisions. Mr. Bj~rklund emphasized that the criteria referred to maintaining a balance, within the plan area, of protection versus development. In response to a question from Mr. Lee regarding the maps of the wetlands sites, Mr. Bj~rklund said that the red areas had already been developed, the orange areas had already been filled, the light green was restored area, and the dark green was protected area. Mr. Bj6rklund said that staff had overlaid the maps that Hyundai submitted into the record on top of the City's wetland mapping and commented that things did not match up in the ways that Hyundai probably intended. He commented that the map shown to the council was the best fit that staff could demonstrate. He said that Hyundai claimed to need 8.2 acres north of the east/west ditch in order to complete its Phase 3 development. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly regarding the location of the east/west ditch, Mr. Bj~rklund said that the Planning Commission recommendation showed the ditch as the boundary, but under Hyundai's change, the ditch would go through the middle of the site. He noted that MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2000 Page 1 Work Session approximately 400 feet of the ditch had been filled as part of a mitigation project intended to direct water to the southern part of the site. Mr. Bj6rklund said that the staff recommendation was based on examination of Hyundai's request as well as examining the objectives that the Eugene and Lane County planning commissions were trying to achieve, and trying to balance the two. He added that staff had tried to maximize developable acres while minimizing impacts to wetlands, habitat, rare plants, and wet prairie. He said that staff's recommendation was a development area of 6.9 acres with a total wetlands impact of 1.4 acres (in addition to what the Planning Commissions recommended). He noted that it avoided impacting rare plants and avoided development in areas that were recommended for protection. In response to a question from Mr. Rayor regarding the part of the ditch that was filled, Mr. Bj0rklund said that it was the upper 400 feet of the area. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly regarding the reasons why the staff recommendation changed, Mr. Bj~rklund indicated, on the map, the area that the two planning commissions had evaluated to determine whether allowing fill and development in the entire area was consistent with the wetlands plan. He said that the conclusion of the planning commissions and staff analysis was that fill and development of the area was not consistent with the wetlands plan. He said that the main reason for that conclusion was the amount of wetlands (14 acres) that would have been impacted by the development. He also noted that the proposed development would have only left a narrow area that was not sufficient to maintain the corridor from the Willow Creek natural area to the east with the protected area on the site. He added that there was a significant difference between the wetlands north and south of the east/west ditch. Taking all of those factors into account, Mr. Bj~rklund said that staff had come up with a changed recommendation. In response to a question from Mr. Fart regarding the condition of the restored area in the staff designation, Mr. Bj~rklund said it was a field with tall grass. He noted that the land had a past history of agricultural use. In response to a question from Mr. Fart regarding the condition of the east/west ditch, Mr. Bj~rklund said that, in summer, it was a dry waterway that was a few feet across. He noted in winter it would contain flowing water. In response to a question from Mr. Fart regarding where the water in the ditch accumulated from, Mr. Bj6rklund said that, according to the hydrological study submitted by Hyundai, the water flowed from southwest to northeast along the field. In response to a question regarding whether the ditch was a natural waterway, Mr. Bj0rklund said that the ditch was manmade. Mr. Fart commented that there were four issues to deal with: protecting the wetlands to the east, addressing the endangered plant species to the west, addressing the restored area, and dealing with the ditch itsself. He said that the restored area had been mitigated in the staff recommendation, rare plant species had been addressed, and that only left the other two to deal with. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2000 Page 2 Work Session In response to a question from Mr. Farr regarding the possibility of relocating the east/west ditch, Mr. Farmer said the ditch could be relocated if the actual functionality of the ditch was enhanced by the relocation. Mr. Meisner commented that he was not seeing a new application of the criteria to justify or explain the change in the staff report. He commented that staff used the same findings and criteria but now, since the site footprint was smaller, staff considered economic development more valuable. Mr. Farmer pointed out the direction of the flow of the wetlands on the site. He said that the wetlands were no longer fed by the water source in the same way as they were before the creek was relocated for the building of the road. He said that, in terms of the mitigation that was carried out, the agreement was to improve the wetlands to a higher quality which meant that the ditch was filled. This diverted some of the water from the ditch into the area in question. Mr. Farmer said that the original proposal that the planning commissions examined would have taken a number of wetlands out of the functioning wetland category and reduced what was left. He said that the smaller footprint for the site affected the value of development. Mr. Meisner reiterated that he did not understand why a smaller footprint of the site changed the outcome. Mr. BjOrklund said that the commissions were trying to protect the waterway and maintain a wide area of protection between the Willow Creek natural area and the site. He said that the new development proposal allowed the areas to be protected and allowed the site to be developed by the owner. Ms. Taylor expressed her dismay that staff had changed the recommendation and asked why staff depended on a hydrological study submitted by Hyundai. Mr. BjOrklund replied that the only hydrological data in the record came from Hyundai. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding a discussion of impacts beyond the site, Mr. BjOrklund said that staff felt the development area was the only area that would be impacted. In response to a question from Mr. Pap8 regarding the reasoning behind the west Eugene Wetlands Plan, Mr. BjOrklund said the City had commissioned a study of four industrial sites and found that they all contained wetlands. When that information was presented to the council, it was decided to address wetlands regionally. He noted that the plan was adopted by the City in 1992 and was subsequently adopted by State and federal wetland agencies as well. He noted that the Hyundai site was within the original plan boundary but was part of 267 acres of wetlands that were missed by the original inventory. He said that this omission was the basis for the plan amendments being discussed. In response to a question from Mr. Pap8 regarding the similarity of definitions of wetlands between the City and the federal government, Mr. BjOrklund said that the City went by State and federal authority of the definition of a wetland. In response to a question from Mr. Pap8 regarding whether the same criteria from Hyundai was being used for the speedway site, Mr. BjOrklund said that they were. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2000 Page 3 Work Session In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding what conditions for mitigation Hyundai had not yet met, Mr. Bj0rklund said that Hyundai was working with staff to address the movement of amphibians under Willow Creek Road. In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding consequences in the wetlands from the activity going on, Mr. Bj0rklund said that there was no evidence of damage to adjacent wetlands. Ms. Nathanson commented that the Wetlands Plan was always meant as a guide to preservation, restoration, and development. She stressed the importance of not losing site of that fact. Mayor Torrey clarified with the City Attorney that the City Council did not give away authority to the planning commissions to make a recommendation. He added that it was within the purview of the City Council to make a motion/recommendation that evening. He stressed that the council was not bound by the commissions' recommendation. Mr. Lee expressed a desire to hear from staff how the criteria affected its decision to change the original recommendation. Mr. Bj0rklund commented that wetlands did not have the kind of boundaries that were imposed on them by land use decisions. He added that if a person took a part of a site and evaluated it separately from the whole, they would come to different conclusions than if the whole site was evaluated. Mr. Bj0rklund said that when the planning commissions had their second public hearing on the Hyundai site, members were looking only at the Phase 3 portion of the site. He reiterated that when staff looked at the Phase 3 site and considered whether the criteria had been met the answer was no. He went on to say that staff then artificially drew a different boundary and re-examined the criteria. He commented that this new examination, compared to the original Phase 3, had very different conclusions. He noted that the corridor between the site and the Willow Creek natural area were maintained and widened, the impact to rare plant species had been eliminated, and the waterway would be relocated and enhanced. Addressing each criterion, Mr. Bj0rklund noted that there were no impacts to rare plants. He stated that none of the site was located in the 100-year flood plain. He said that the site was within 100 feet of a waterway. Mr. Lee asked Mr. Bj0rklund to write yes or no to all of the criterion listed on the easel pad. Mr. Lee expressed a desire to see a matrix that showed how each proposal met the criteria. Mr. Rayor commented that it was hard for the public to know how pressing the need for the land was. He suggested referring the issue back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Farr observed that the same staff team that did the wetlands plan did the recommendation for the Hyundai site. In response to a question from Mr. Farr regarding how the filled area of the wetland would be mitigated, Mr. Bj0rklund said that they could be mitigated on site, which would include restoring some of the nonwetland areas, or they could purchase credits from the mitigation bank. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2000 Page 4 Work Session In response to a question from Mr. Farr regarding the ratio of fill to mitigation, Mr. Bj0rklund said that for each acre impacted, Hyundai would have to mitigate 2-1/2 acres. Mr. Farr commented that the council should look at the results instead of trying to examine why the staff recommendation changed. He was not in favor of referring the issue back to the Planning Commission. He stressed that the bottom line was that the wetland was going to be improved. He emphasized that there would be better east/west water flow, more restored wetlands, endangered plants were not being disturbed, and development was being kept out of protected areas. Doing a process check, Mayor Torrey said that the next round of discussion would be about tabling the issue or voting on an option. He added that there would not be time to deal with the second agenda item (TransPlan). Mr. Kelly said that the issue was only over the Phase 3 site. Addressing Mr. Papa's comments regarding the state and federal criteria, He quoted a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers. "It is the Corp's assessment that the goals and objectives of the plan, as expressed by the City, can best be obtained by designating the wetlands north of the east/west drainage for development and those south of the drainage for protection. This division of wetland protection and development designations preserves a viable wetland system yet recognizes the City's need to provide land for special light industrial." Mr. Kelly appreciated Mr. Bj6rklund's answer to Mr. Lee's question about criterion, but said that he was "beyond angry" that the council was seeing the information for the first time on the night that it was supposed to provide direction. He raised concern that he was being pushed into a decision before he had the appropriate amount of information. Mr. Kelly commented that, with the previous staff recommendation, a predominance of protection criteria were met and, with the new staff proposal, that predominance no longer existed. Mr. Bj6rklund said that the analysis called for under the designation criteria was not mathematical. He said that the council needed to evaluate them as a whole and judge the balance based on the way the values balance out on the whole. There was general discussion over the agreed-upon ending time of the meeting. City Attorney Glenn Klein emphasized that any decision the council made that night was a tentative decision. He said that official action did not have to be the same as the decision made that evening. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly regarding extending developable acreage to different points on the site, Mr. Bj~rklund said that the option had been examined before the staff recommendation was formulated. He commented that the wetland had different boundaries were different for different pads of the year. He added that if the council only looked at the issue in terms of how many acres of wetlands were impacted on the map, it would not reflect the values it was impacting. He commented that the areas indicated by Mr. Kelly were marginally nonwetland. He stressed that development, as a whole, needed to be considered as the development boundary was moved south. He said that staff felt that there were too many habitat impacts with the idea that Mr. Kelly had suggested. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2000 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Kelly commented that he could not see how the staff recommendation was supportable under the criteria. Mr. Kelly commented that the east/west ditch was a protected waterway in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan and asked what legal processes needed to be gone through to be able to fill it. Mr. Bjerklund replied that the protection designation on waterways, in the plan, was primarily implemented in the waterside protection subdistrict. He reiterated that the site had been inadvertently left out. He said that the staff notes had direction to proceed with rezoning that property as a City-initiated rezoning and they would go forward with that once the amendments in question were adopted. He added that relocation of the ditch would require a site review that included replanting native species, and alignment. He stressed that it would be required to increase the natural functions and values. Mr. Meisner commented that he still did not have enough information to be comfortable making a decision. He reiterated that he did not know how staff came up with its recommendation. Mr. Bjerklund said that when the criteria were applied to the entire Hyundai site, a person would find that there was strong development criteria and strong protection criteria and strong restoration criteria. He stressed that there could not be one designation on the whole site. He said that the Army Corps of Engineers had granted a permit for part of the site and that automatically went to development. He said that there were originally 66 acres of wetland and there were about 55 left (10-1/2 acres were filled under the original permit) Mr. Meisner still did not understand why the application of the criteria had not changed but the recommendation had. Mr. Farmer attempted to explain the same information supplied by Mr. BjOrklund in a different manner. Ms. Taylor commented that the entire discussion had been examining the side of development rather than the environment. She expressed a desire to examine the issue from the perspective of how best to protect the environment. She raised concern over the incremental impacts of more development in the area. Mr. Lee commented that there was no one on the council that wanted to see wetlands destroyed. He stressed that staff was trying to find the right balance. Mr. Lee, seconded by Ms. Taylor (as duty of the council vice president, but indicated that she would vote against the motion), moved to direct staff to prepare findings consistent with Option 3, which was to modify the Planning Commission recommendation to accommodate expansion on the site while avoiding impacts in contiguous wetland area and to rare plants and requiring enhancement and relocation of the east/west ditch addressed in the June 21, 2000, staff memorandum. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Rayor, moved to amend the motion by asking staff to prepare a plan amendment in agreement with Option 1, which was to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendations. Ms. Taylor noted that the council did not have to abide by the Planning Commission's recommendations but opined that its recommendation was the right thing to do. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2000 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Rayor commented that it was justifiable to ask staff to show a comparison of criteria to show the before and after of its decision. Mr. Kelly commented that there were other options that would give more land available for development but not have the wetlands impact that Option 3 had. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to table the item. The motion failed 6:2; Mr. Lee, Mr. Meisner, and Mr. Kelly voting in favor. Mr. Fart, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to call the question. The motion passed, 7:0. The amendment to the original motion failed, 5:4; Mr. Lee, Mr. Rayor, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Meisner, and Ms. Taylor voting in favor. Mr. Meisner reiterated that he still did not have the information that he wanted and added that the two options on the table were not the only options that should be considered. He stated that he would vote against the main motion. He reiterated that the council was being forced to make a decision without all the information and opportunity for discussion. Mr. Fart, seconded by Mr. Lee, moved to call the question on the main motion. The motion failed for lack of six votes. Ms. Nathanson said that she understood the process that led to staff's new proposal. She commented that the explanation had been given in a different way at least three times that evening. She said that she did not believe additional time would yield a different proposal. She stated that she would support the staff proposal. Mr. Kelly said that he did not have enough information to make an informed decision. He said that he would be happy to have Hyundai begin Phase 3 of its development if it could meet the criteria. He said that he would oppose the motion. Mr. Lee, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to amend the motion so that in addition to directing staff to prepare findings consistent with Option 3, staff are also directed to look at alternatives to Option 3 consistent with the discussion that the council had at the current meeting. Mr. Kelly proposed a friendly amendment that would allow another work session on the issue. Mr. Fart commented that the friendly amendment would be the same as tabling the item. Mayor Torrey urged the council to remember that there were many work sessions in the near future and asked councilors to consider if they really wanted another work session. He stated that Mr. Lee could just ask staff to provide them with the information they were lacking. Ms. Nathanson raised concern that staff was being directed to look at alternatives that had already been examined. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2000 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Childs said that staff could come back to the council, if the amendment passed, with the rationale behind the change in the staff proposal. She noted that it would take a few weeks. She noted that the item was scheduled for action on July 10, but that item would be postponed if the amendment passed. Mr. Meisner said that he would vote for the amendment. Mr. Pap~ commented that a mathematical formula to make a decision needed to be based on the values of the community. He added that the human element needed to be taken into account when making environmental decisions. He urged each councilor to vote the according to the values of their ward. The amendment passed 5:3; Mr. Fart, Mr. Pap~, and Ms. Nathanson voting in opposition. The main motion, as amended, passed 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Joe Sams) MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2000 Page 8 Work Session