Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 08/02/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room, City Hall--Eugene, Oregon August 2, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Farr, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Gary PapS. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Gary Rayor. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION A. Items from Mayor, Council, and City Manager In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, City Attorney Glenn Klein stated that the City Council had already held a public hearing on the ordinance regarding the West Eugene Wetlands Plan amendment addressing the Hyundai site; he clarified that the exhibits to the ordinance, not the text of the ordinance, had changed. The council was considering modifying an ordinance on which it had held a public hearing, consistent with its past practice. Mr. Papd reported on a bicycle-auto collusion he had witnessed the previous week and expressed gratitude no one was hurt. The cyclist in question acknowledged running a red light. Mr. Papd asked for information on how actively the City enforced its traffic laws against bicyclists, and how many bicycle citations the City issued in 1999 as compared to automobile citations. He emphasized his interest in the protection of bicyclists regardless of who had the right-of-way, added that in the case of bicycle-automobile collisions, bicyclists were not "going to win." Mr. Kelly noted his concurrence with the concerns expressed by Mr. Papd, and said he had been told that other states had stop signs that were, for bicyclists, the equivalent of yield signs. He would be interested in more information about that practice as it related to signage, as opposed to traffic signals. Mr. Kelly expressed pleasure that a series of concerts was scheduled to be held downtown, the first of which was occurring that evening. He believed such events underscored a sense of neighborhood. The concerts were co-sponsored by Downtown Eugene, Inc., Downtown Events Management, Inc., and funded in part by the City's Matching Grants Program. Mr. Kelly asked staff to ensure that the B-1 capital projects were discussed by the council, perhaps not in a separate work session but in conjunction with the Capital Improvement Program. Ms. Nathanson expressed concern that a workshop on recreation and environmental opportunities in the West Eugene wetlands area was held at the Hilyard Community Center rather than at a location in west Eugene. She acknowledged the lack of a community center in west Eugene but pointed out that there were other MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 2, 2000 Page 1 Work Session locations, such as Churchill High School and the fire station, where meetings could be held. She suggested that meetings related to a specific neighborhood interest be held in those neighborhoods. Ms. Nathanson provided the council with an update on the work of the Ad hoc Committee on Greater Downtown Visioning. She thanked the media for its ongoing coverage of the visioning process. Mr. Meisner had no items. Mr. Fart said he recently had an opportunity to visit the Saturday Market in conjunction with a performance including his son. He said that many people believe that the market was an "alternative" type of event only for a small group of people. Mr. Fart said that was not the case. He had a wonderful time at the market and encouraged residents to attend. He hoped the council would do what it could to keep the market a strong and integral part of the city. Mr. Lee had no items. Mayor Torrey reminded the council of the upcoming Joint Elected Officials' meeting regarding the TransPlan update on August 9. Mayor Torrey reported that he had been informed that the Neighborhood Leaders Council had decided to longer participate as part of the "Gang of Four." The Friends of Eugene had reached a similar decision. It was possible that the four groups could meet to discuss issues and may from time to time to get back together as a group, but will not provide further comment as a group on the Land Use Code Update. B. Work Session and Action: An Ordinance Amending the West Eugene Wetlands Plan by Adopting New Wetland Designation for Site HG, Referred to as the Hyundai Site, and Related Text Amendments; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date Planning and Development Department Director Paul Farmer, Planning Director Jan Childs, and Senior Planner Neil Bj6rklund joined the council for the item. Mr. Bj6rklund provided an overview of the contents of the council meeting packet related to the item. He noted the options previously discussed by the council and a new ordinance and findings, which he termed Option 4, developed in response to the concerns raised by the council at the July 10 work session. Mr. Bj6rklund noted that staff had identified errors in the findings for Option 3, which would need to be corrected if the option was adopted by the council. He said that staff had also produced the map missing from Exhibit C to the ordinance for Option 4; he distributed copies of the map. Ms. Nathanson determined from Mr. Bj6rklund that the errors in the findings for Option 3 were largely typographical errors, with one error related to a cross reference to a finding in a table. Mr. Bj6rklund invited questions. Mr. Kelly said he would be happy to support the Eugene and Lane County planning commissions' recommendation (Option 1), but he was unsure there was majority support for that option. He believed that there were different places where "you can draw the line" and still be consistent with the criteria. Mr. Kelly found Option 4 to be an attractive option because, with the exception of the thin strip south of the east-west MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 2, 2000 Page 2 Work Session ditch, the option was consistent with the recommendation of the planning commissions. He pointed that allowed a nonwetland area to be developed, and noted that the West Eugene Wetlands Plan was not intended to regulate nonwetland areas. Mr. Kelly said that information from staff also indicated that a relocated east- west ditch might have a higher value for the wetlands. At the request of Mr. Pap~, Mr. Bj6rklund used a wall map to distinguish between the areas proposed to be protected, restored, and developed on the site in Option 4, and noted the associated acreages. He differentiated between the elements of the recommendations reflected in options 3 and 4. Ms. Taylor asked if the purpose of Option 4 was to make it easier for Hyundai to develop. Mr. Bj6rklund responded that staff developed the option in response to concerns raised by the council about the need for more alternatives than had been previously presented. Ms. Taylor said that adoption of the option would have the effect of making the site more easy for Hyundai to develop. Mr. Bj6rklund said that in comparison to the planning commissions' recommendation, there would be more land available for development. Ms. Taylor said that if the council approved Option 4 the result would be further degradation of wetland and scenic values on the site and the value of the remaining wetlands was decreased. Mr. Torrey suggested that Option 2, the option put forward by Hyundai, was based on the company's assessment of its development site needs for Phase 3 of its development. He asked if staff had been in communication with Hyundai to know if Option 4 met the company's needs. Mr. Bj6rklund said the company had responded, both through the media and in a voice mail message he had received after the close of the record, that Option 3 would be workable for its plans. The company had made no statement about Option 4. Mr. Torrey noted absent Councilor Gary Rayor's suggestion that the construction preparation area could be restored and protected after construction was completed. He asked if that was possible. He added that he did not think Hyundai's request was unreasonable, but he was prepared to support Option 3, and possibly Option 4. Mr. Bj6rklund clarified that Mr. Rayor was referring to what was known as a "lay down" area. Under wetland law, temporary storage could occur as long as that storage met no definition of fill, and that storage would be less damaging during the dry season. He believed it would require more research to determine whether such a use was compatible with the wetland designation of restoration. At the request of Mr. Lee, Mr. Bj6rklund briefly described the State wetlands conservation plan approval process and the conditions imposed on Eugene's plan related to adoption of the plan amendments by December 31, 2000. He said that State staff indicated that because the plan's approval had been extended once before, it would not be extended again. If the approval was revoked by the State, it had implications for property development in the west Eugene area. He spoke of the plan's status as a national model, and said that revocation of the plan would have symbolic implications at the regional and national level as well. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Lee, Mr. Bj6rklund said that if the plan's approval was revoked, it would still have force as local policy and it would have some effect at the State level, but the federal government could approve a fill permit that was not consistent with the plan. At the request of Mr. Lee, Mr. Bj6rklund used a wall map of the site to describe the differences between the options. Mr. Farr commended the ongoing quality of the staffwork on the topic. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 2, 2000 Page 3 Work Session Responding to a question from Mr. Fart, Mr. Bj6rklund attributed the West Eugene Wetlands Plan's national status to its balanced, regional, landscape approach, the partnership of a variety of government and private partners, and the mitigation bank, which had funded nationally recognized high-quality wetlands restoration projects. Mr. Fart determined from Mr. Bj6rklund that Option 4 would impact less than one-half an acre (0.4 acres). Mr. Fart asked what he would see if he traveled along one of the wetland "arms" mentioned by Mr. Bj6rklund that were on the site. Mr. Bj6rklund said that during this time of year, it was unlikely Mr. Fart would recognize the difference between the wetland and nonwetland portion of the site. The wetland mapping for the area showed that many of the nonwetland areas had hydric soils, but had fewer wetland plants. Mr. Fart favored Option 4 as a carefully crafted compromise that allowed for the more effective use of nonwetlands area and would have a minimal effect on the wetlands. He asked about the status of the east- west ditch. Mr. Bj6rklund said that the ditch contained flow on a seasonal basis, and was partially filled for 400 feet of its length. Mr. Fart asked if the east-west ditch would be more viable under Option 4. Mr. Bj6rklund indicated that Hyundai would be required to demonstrate that the function and values of the ditch would be improved before it could be relocated. Mr. Meisner observed that the wetlands plan was intended to provide both balance and predictability. He thought Option 4 achieved those goals and was an improvement over Option 3. It provided for both development and substantial protection of the wetlands. Ms. Nathanson found the findings for Option 4 to be much improved over the findings the council had considered for Option 3. She said that findings were specific as to what she considered the most important objectives for the site, as they kept the ditch as far north as possible, separated the development and natural area, and maintained the width of the prairie corridor on the southeast portion of the site. Ms. Nathanson said that the council should keep in mind that the option minimized fill of the wetlands, and that three-quarters of the site was designated for protection while another quarter, including that already developed, would be designated for development. Mr. Kelly also commended the staf?s work on the subject and said he always found that staff was well- motivated and worked to do the right thing. He appreciated the staff response to the council's concerns in the form of Option 4. He said that he could not have supported Option 3 because of the insufficiency of the findings. Mr. Kelly said that the council had no real way to know if Option 3 would have worked for Hyundai. He said that one Hyundai spokesman indicated in the local newspaper that it would, while another stated on another day that the company did not know if the option was feasible. At the request of Mr. Pap6, Mr. Bj6rklund described the initial impetus that led to the development of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan, saying that the City had found many wetland sites in a prime industrial area where significant growth was planned. The council at that time believed that a local role in the fill permitting process was essential, and that a local wetlands conservation plan would provide both certainty for development and better protection for the wetlands through the more regional approach envisioned in the plan. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 2, 2000 Page 4 Work Session Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Bj6rklund pointed to an error in the Development Criterion Table on page 14 in Exhibit C of the findings for Option 3; the table should indicate that neither the whole site or north area could be protected in perpetuity. He referred to the findings for Option 4, in particular the Protection Criteria and the change for the north area in Criterion 7 in the table on page 14 in Exhibit C. The north area subsequently met only two Protect criteria. The correction was further reflected in the Development criteria. He also pointed out that Development criterion 4 for the southwest field had been changed for Option 4 on the basis of a change in the evaluation from the reduction in impact area. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner about next steps, Mr. Bj6rklund said that he believed that Hyundai's wetlands delineation would expire prior to the time the company could embark on construction, which could mean the company would have to redelineate wetlands. A redelineation could find a different pattern of wetlands, particularly if the delineation occurred at a different time of year and because wetlands can change over time. Any new wetlands found on the site would be undesignated wetlands, and the company would have to apply for a permit to the regulatory agencies. That permit application would also include information about how the company would address its mitigation requirements. Mr. Klein added that the east-west ditch was a protected waterway and also fell under the jurisdiction of the City's open waterway ordinance. Ms. Nathanson observed that the plan resulted in unified, continuous wetlands that provided superior habitat and wetland function values, and that would not occur if permits were processed in a piecemeal fashion by many agencies. She believed that a comprehensive approach was always the desired approach when determining what to preserve or protect. Acknowledging pressure from several constituencies about the issue, Ms. Nathanson asked if "this was the end of the story, or are we going to be asked to move the goal posts again?" Ms. Taylor said she was "amazed we're even talking about this" given Hyundai's past assertions that Phase 3 was not needed. The company had received no permission to build Phase 3. Ms. Taylor maintained that the company had repeatedly violated laws and damaged surface water. She objected that the company had attempted to have the toxic right-to-know law overturned and had sued the City over the council's changes to the enterprise zone rules. She objected to the fact that the company sought exemptions to the noise ordinance during construction. Ms. Taylor did not consider Hyundai an asset to the community. She suggested that balance was achieved when the company was granted permission to build phase 1 and 2. Ms. Taylor said that if Phase 3 was built, Hyundai would become the third largest employer in the community, and she believed that gave the firm more power to "frighten people and get whatever they want," including tax breaks. She noted that Phase 3 would receive the same tax breaks as the first phases. Ms. Taylor asked what advantage there was to the wetlands for Option 4 over Option 1. Mr. Bj6rklund did not think there was an advantage in terms of wetlands values. The wetlands impact would have to be mitigated. Option 4 would allow 5.1 acres of developable land while impacting 0.4 acres of wetlands. Ms. Taylor said that the point of the option was to allow more development. Mr. Bj6rklund said that the option would allow additional development. Mr. Lee said that it was not the council's role to use public policy to target a specific company or industry. He said that there were probably a dozen ways to lay out the map, but the option gave the company a MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 2, 2000 Page 5 Work Session framework to work within. He thought Option 4 provided a greater balance between development and protection than Option 3, in keeping with the spirit of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. Mr. Lee said that the council would consider Council Bill 4737, an ordinance amending the West Eugene Wetlands by adopting new and revised wetland designations for site HG (Option 4), referred to as the Hyundai site, and related policy and text amendments; adopting a severability clause; and providing an effective date. Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, that the bill, with the unanimous consent of the council, be read a second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Ms. Taylor asked if the council should not wait to vote until Mr. Rayor was present. Mr. Torrey said that Mr. Rayor was aware the vote was to be taken, and when asked indicated he did not want the vote postponed. Mr. Kelly clarified that Phase 2 of the Hyundai development, while referred to several times, had not been built. Responding to Ms. Taylor's earlier question, Mr. Kelly said that the council was discussing the topic because it needed to designate the undesignated wetlands. He said that he did not consider the discussion to be about Hyundai. He had attempted to look at the criteria and find an option that satisfied the criteria. He believed Hyundai had done some good things and some bad things, and would continue to do some of both. Mr. Kelly emphasized his interest in an option that satisfied the criteria. Mr. Kelly suggested that one potential advantage to the wetlands from Option 4 as opposed to Option 1 could be the relocation of the east-west ditch, which could create better wetlands values. He suggested another advantage of Option 4 was the larger number of votes it could garner. Mr. Meisner felt that Option 4 was reasonable. He agreed with Ms. Taylor that the tax situation was frustrating, but the exemptions were not granted in perpetuity, and at some point in time will expire. Ms. Nathanson noted that she would have supported Option 3 if a motion to that effect had been made. She asked for information about mitigation ratios related to the impact of 0.4 acres. Mr. Bj6rklund said that the mitigation ratios for the wetland type of wet prairie was 2.5 acres for each acre of impacted wetland. He said wet prairie had the highest value and replacement value, adding that was one reason that plan policy preferred impacts to lower quality wetlands. In staf?s analysis, the lower quality wetlands south of the east-west ditch would be easier to replace in terms of quality and complexity. Mr. Farr said that Mr. Bj6rklund's remarks seemed to argue for the relative benefit of Option 4 to the wetlands as opposed to Option 1. He said that Mr. Kelly's remarks for the relocation of the ditch supported those remarks. As it stood, the ditch was not actually much of a ditch at this point. Mr. Farr said that it was not often the council was as close to unanimous as it appeared to be on this topic, and he commended the development of the option. He said that the council was interested in the balance the option represented. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 2, 2000 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Bj6rklund clarified that he could not unequivocally say that filling and mitigating the wetlands would be better than not filling them, because there was never a guarantee that the values involved could be replaced. He suggested that, at best, the values would "come out even." Ms. Taylor said that no one knows if mitigation worked and one could not easily replace the biodiversity it took so long to develop in a short time. Responding to Mr. Kelly's remarks, Ms. Taylor said that she knew why the council was talking about the amendments, but she did not know why the council was talking about making it possible for Hyundai to develop another phase. Mr. Pap~ concurred with Ms. Nathanson about "moving goal posts." He asked if Option 4 was consistent with the other sites under consideration. Mr. Bj6rklund said yes. Mayor Torrey thought that there was nothing wrong with specifically identifying a development in the discussion. He said that Hyundai was a stakeholder in the discussion and it was the council's responsibility to make the determination of what was appropriate after hearing all the evidence. He noted his own support for Option 3, but thought there was strength in the unanimity of the council's position on the subject. The motion passed, 6:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. Because Ms. Taylor voted against the first reading of the bill, the second reading of the bill was scheduled for August 7, 2000. Ms. Taylor indicated she did not want to have the entire ordinance read that evening. The council took a brief meeting recess. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 2, 2000 Page 7 Work Session C. Work Session: An Ordinance Amending the West Eugene Wetlands Plan by Adopting a New and Revised Wetlands Designation for Site H2, Referred to as the Speedway Site, and Related Policy and Text Amendments; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date Mr. Bj6rklund reminded the council of its previous discussions and noted that staff had prepared a map illustrating Option 3(B). He invited questions. Mr. Klein said that the owner's representative had requested that staff provide the council with copies of a letter from him, dated June 27, 2000. He said that the letter was not included in the record and could not be a basis for findings in support of the council's position. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Klein said that distribution of the letter was consistent with the council's past practice; councilors did not have to read it. Mr. Lee indicated he would not be reading the letter. Mr. Kelly did not think the letter was appropriate at this stage in the process. Using a wall map, Ms. Childs described scenarios for access to the site from West 18th Avenue and Willow Creek Road. She said because of that potential access, staff did not recommend the extension of West 13th Avenue through the property. Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Bj6rklund said to extend 13th Avenue would require that high quality wetlands be crossed by the road, impacting a protected creek. It was possible that rare plants would be affected. He acknowledged it was difficult to assess the impact without more information. Mayor Torrey asked if Option 3(B) provided sufficient room for a 60-foot wide road accessing West 11th Avenue. Mr. Bj6rklund said yes. There was a minimum of 60 feet available. Mayor Torrey asked about provision for a second exit to the west or south. Mr. Bj6rklund pointed out the area designated now for development and suggested it was a potential access site. Mr. Meisner thanked staff for its clarifications about the potential access points to the site. He thought the options for access were "a mess." None of the options seemed to have any particular merit, although he appreciated the work staff had done to ensure that adequate right-of-way was identified in Option 3 (B). Referring to the secondary access issue, Mr. Kelly said that there were several residential examples of developments with single access, particularly in the south hills. He said that it appeared the site could be developed with multiple interior routes that all met at a single location. He was concerned about maintaining connectivity with adjacent wetlands and would oppose any option that threatened that connectivity. Ms. Nathanson favored Option 3(B) at this point because she believed the City needed to ensure a number of access points from the site and she was not confident that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) would permit access from West 1 lth Avenue. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Klein clarified that although the State administrative rules related to road access were not on the record, the council could consider them. Mr. Pap~ believed increased access to West 1 lth Avenue was problematic given ODOT's administrative rules. Ms. Childs said she had not recently examined those rules but acknowledged ODOT was conservative in granting road access. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 2, 2000 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Klein said that the administrative rules were not so clear that the council could predict the future of what ODOT would do regarding access to West 11th Avenue on the basis of the rules. Mr. Pap~ confirmed the size, zoning, and Metropolitan Plan designation for the site. He asked what could be developed on the site. Ms. Childs said the C-2 was a general commercial zone allowing a wide range of commercial uses. She could not speculate on the use that was eventually located on the site, but concurred that it would probably be a commercial use that would attract customers using automobiles. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Pap~, Ms. Childs said that there were many sites along West 1 lth Avenue with only one access, but she did not know if they were as large. Mr. Pap~ believed that the site as zoned would need another access. Ms. Childs responded that when staff looked at the site, it saw potential access to three major streets, not one access. She pointed out that Fred Meyers on West 11th Avenue, for example, had driveway but not local street access to West 1 lth Avenue, which was an alternative for the property in question. Mr. Pap~ said that the City should do what it could to help the owners of properties in west Eugene to develop them in accordance with the expectations they had when they purchased the property. He wanted staff to develop further options that met the wetlands criteria while also helping the property owner realize his expectations for the property. Mr. Fart expressed concern about the low availability of C-2 land in the community and said few such large vacant parcels were available now. He concurred with the remarks of Mr. Pap~, saying he hoped the City could find a way to facilitate the owner's use of the property by helping to provide access to the site. Mr. Kelly said he was still ready to support Option 3 or, with reluctance, Option 3(B) because of the access issue. He thought the access the option would provide was sufficient with proper design and properly sized streets. Mr. Meisner was prepared to support Option 3(B). He was concerned that the council's discussion regarding access was of the level of access sufficient to support big box development, and hoped that the council looked at a greater range of uses for West 11th Avenue and west Eugene. He believed that there were also opportunities for redevelopment in west Eugene, and that other C-2 sites could be available in the future. Ms. Nathanson said that while the street connectivity standards provided for an exemption for natural features, the open waterways ordinance allowed for street connections across waterways. She had been interested in the possible extension of West 13th Avenue to the site and suggested that it could terminated at Commerce Street, which was a good street with excellent access to West 11th Avenue. Ms. Nathanson was still intrigued by the potential, but did not know the wetlands impact of the possibility. She expressed a wish for better pedestrian connections between businesses on West 11th Avenue. Ms. Taylor did not want to extend West 13th Avenue into the property. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Childs said that the planning commissions assumed that the development would take access off West 11th Avenue. She said that the access could be inadequate if to West 11th Avenue alone and it would be quite narrow if the area was developed with more than one retail use. Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to direct staff to prepare findings consistent with Option 3(B), chosen by the council for the speedway site (Site H2). MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 2, 2000 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Papd moved, seconded by Mr. Fart, to amend the motion to look at potential other access points to the site. The motion failed, 4:3; Mr. Papd, Ms. Nathanson, and Mr. Fart voting yes. The main motion passed, 7:0. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 2, 2000 Page 10 Work Session