Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 08/04/99 JEO MINUTES Joint Elected Officials Meeting Eugene City Council/Lane Board of County Commissioners City Council Chamber--777 Pearl Street August 4, 1999 6p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Farr, Betty Taylor, David Kelly. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Bobby Lee, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bobby Green, Cindy Weeldreyer, Anna Morrison, Peter Sorenson. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Bill Dwyer. 1. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 20126; AMENDING THE WEST EUGENE WETLANDS PLAN BY ADOPTING NEW AND REVISED PLAN POLICIES RELATED TO THE CRITERIA FOR WETLANDS DESIGNATIONS; AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE In the absence of Mayor James D. Torrey, Council President Scott Meisner called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. He read a letter from Mayor Torrey to the council indicating the mayor was out of town and unable to attend the evening's hearings. In his letter, Mayor Torrey indicated he would view a videotape of the proceedings upon his return. Mr. Green called the meeting of the Lane Board of County Commissioners to order and noted the second reading of Ordinance Number Plan Amendment 1133, in the Matter of Amending the West Eugene Wetlands Plan by adopting new and revised plan policies related to the criteria for wetlands designation, and adopting a severability clause. He also noted that Commissioner Bill Dwyer was excused from the meeting. Mr. Meisner requested the staff presentation. Neil BjOrklund, Senior Planner, Eugene Planning and Development Department, provided the staff presentation. He described the background of the amendments under consideration, which largely concerned clarification and adoption of the wetland protection/development/restoration criteria. Mr. Bj6rklund noted that the Eugene and Lane County planning commissions had considered the amendments and forwarded a recommendation to the elected officials; Eugene had acted on those recommendations, but the County had not because of concerns about the criteria. Subsequently, the elected officials formed the Council/Board Committee on Wetlands Policy Amendments, which met twice to examine the criteria and develop an acceptable compromise. MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials-- August 4, 1999 Page 1 Eugene City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners Mr. Bj6rklund said the committee, whose members were Mr. Sorenson, Ms. Nathanson, and Mr. Kelly, examined what was termed Board Alternative 2. The alternative was partly taken from the analysis developed by Steve Gordon of Lane Council of Governments and partly taken from the council's adopted amendments. The alternative was an attempt to clarify the criteria without changing the original intent of the plan. Mr. Bj6rklund briefly described the changes to the criteria recommended by the committee. He reminded the elected officials that the criteria were intended to allow them to decide how to designate wetlands not yet designated, with the exception of the Eugene Speedway, which the State directed the City to redesignate. Mr. Sorenson asked Mr. Bj6rklund what would be the effect if the elected officials failed to act on the amendments. Mr. Bj6rklund responded that if the amendments were not adopted in the same form by the City and County, they would not go into effect, and under the law the current criteria would be retained. Mr. Sorenson asked if the criteria were intended to help guide the elected officials in reaching a decision, but were not binding upon the elected officials in making designations in the future. Mr. Bj6rklund said the criteria were not prescriptive. They did not dictate an outcome unless there was a site that met one of the standards, in which case the outcome would be predictable. Mr. Bj6rklund said that to go against the standards would require a plan amendment. Mr. Sorenson asked if Mr. Bj6rklund would concur with a statement that the criteria were a means to guide the elected officials toward a decision, or required them to act as finders of fact who must come to a particular decision because of the criteria in the plan. Mr. Bj6rklund believed that the criteria guided the elected officials but were not so prescriptive as to determine the outcome of a decision. He said the elected officials would have to make findings and act consistently with the criteria. However, he believed the criteria as written provided room for judgment on the part of the elected officials. Mr. Kelly noted that it was not the committee's charge to redo the wetlands plan, but rather to focus on criteria that would be clear and consistent with the intent of the original plan. Mr. Meisner reviewed the procedures for the public hearing. He opened the public hearing for the Eugene City Council. Mr. Green opened the public hearing for the Lane Board of County Commissioners. Shawn Boles, 105 North Adams Street, said that resolution on the issue under consideration was long in coming and he hoped the elected officials would make a decision soon. He suggested the elected officials were faced with a policy decision regarding which set of criteria maximized the protection of existing wetlands. He regretted the board's failure to adopt the criteria recommended by the Lane County ane Eugene planning commissions, particularly since the decision regarded a municipal concern. Mr. Boles recommended to the council that if it were unable to reach agreement with the board on the criteria, it restrict the plan boundaries to with inside the city limits and adopt the criteria it wished, avoiding additional and unproductive costs and processes. David Hauser, 2168 Elkhorn Drive, representing the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, indicated the chamber's support for the revised amendments as a means of achieving the plan's objective of balancing environment and development needs. Mr. Hauser noted the chamber's long-time concern about the implications of the amendments on the community's ability to comply with State Land Use Goal 9, which called for a supply of land for commercial and industrial uses to meet a 20-year projected demand. He believed that the criteria left room for interpretation, and cited protection criterion 2 as an example; did it refer to how the water flowed off a site, or did it imply a connection through a means such as a culvert? Mr. MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials-- August 4, 1999 Page 2 Eugene City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners Hauser recommended that the City apply the criteria to sites already designated and see how those sites fared before the elected officials adopted them. Mary O'Brien, 3525 Gilham Road, addressed her concerns regarding protection criterion 1. She objected to the provision in the criterion that indicated it was not met if only a small number of plants were found on a isolated site with limited suitable habitat. Ms. O'Brien referred to a study by Klaus Richter and Amanda Azous of King County Planning in Bellevue, which was based on an examination of wetlands sites around Seattle. The study indicated the size of a wetland and its isolation from other wetland sites did not matter in terms of its suitability for amphibians. She called for the elimination of the second sentence in the criterion, which she believed canceled the impact of the first sentence and would result in the elimination of habitat for rare and endangered species. Ms. O'Brien said the development standard was bad public policy because it eliminated all environmental criteria if a development could obtain a fill permit from the regulatory agencies. She said the development standard was a means of avoiding the City's processes. Ms. O'Brien called for reexamination of protection criterion 4 regarding surface water connections. She questioned the supplemental information wetland hydrology, and referred to the submittal of hydrologist John Corliss, who maintained that the information was not scientifically accurate. Regarding Ms. O'Brien's remarks regarding protection criterion 4, Mr. Kelly suggested that the criterion would mean that sites adjacent to protected wetlands would be protected as well to ensure that flow from the site did not contaminate the already protected site. Regarding surface connections, Mr. Kelly pointed out that they were relatively easy to measure. He did not know how one would determine if the criterion were satisfied if it were expanded to include subsurface flow. He asked Ms. O'Brien for assistance in how to determine that subsurface connection without including all of west Eugene. Ms. O'Brien indicated she would follow-up on Mr. Kelly's question. Ruth Duemler, 1745 Fir Crest Drive, represented the League of Women Voters of Lane County. She said that the league urged the elected officials to adopt the amendments without further delay. However, Ms. Duemler indicated her belief Ms. O'Brien's concerns should be followed up upon. Ms. Duemler noted the rapid pace at which wetlands were being lost and referred the elected officials to an article from The Register-Guard she had distributed earlier, which described the rate of loss in the Willamette Valley. She stressed the importance of interconnectedness to the success of wetlands. Ms. Duemler thanked those involved in working to preserve wetlands in west Eugene. Terry Connelly, 1401 Willamette Street, represented the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce. He noted the chamber's long-time support for the West Eugene Wetlands Plan and the goals it contained. He said the chamber was seeking further information from the City about the number of newly identified wetlands sites the proposed criteria and standards would apply to. Mr. Connelly said the chamber believed the information was needed to ensure the inventory of industrial land was correct. Mr. Connelly said the chamber was also concerned about protection criterion 3. He said that some found the term "waterway" broad, and wanted to ensure that the waterways referred to were defined as those designated in blue on Map 3 of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. Mr. Connelly suggested that protection criterion 4 be MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials-- August 4, 1999 Page 3 Eugene City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners reexamined and revised to be more precise about what was intended; did "direct" refer to a pipeline from one site to another, or could it refer to seasonal runoff from an uplands to a wetland site? Art Farley, 708 Woodhill Drive, represented Friends of Eugene/Springfield Habitats (FRESH). He noted his organization's long-time support for the West Eugene Wetlands Plan and the balance it represented. He said that FRESH had concerns about the revised criteria. Mr. Farley believed that while the intent of the changes was to clarify the criteria, he also believed that in all cases the small clarifications favored development and made it more difficult to protect wetlands. He suggested the City retain the original criteria and designate what sites it could. Emily Fox, 455 East 43rd Avenue, referred to an article from a 1993 edition of Science magazine entitled "Wetlands Mitigation is a Loser's Game." She quoted from the article, which called for comprehensive land use planning that steered development away from wetlands to more appropriate sites. She suggested the elected officials consider favoring protection over development given the loss of wetland that had occurred to this point. Ms. Fox reviewed the professional resume of John Corliss, and said that Mr. Corliss was able to identify the value of an isolated site by evaluating the sites around it. She urged the elected officials to rewrite protection criterion 4 as proposed by Mr. Corliss. Mr. Sorenson said the elected officials were required to comply with many regulations, one of which concerned the State's mandate for certain supply of housing, commercial, and industrial land. He asked Ms. Fox how she would recommend the elected officials comply with those laws. Mark Robinowitz, 2423 Friendly Street, said the community should prioritize protection of the wetlands over other uses. He said the plan was meaningless if the West Eugene Parkway was not removed from TransPlan. Mr. Robinowitz said that the 20-year planning period exceeded the petroleum age. In combination with the worldwide ecology crash he believed was currently underway, it was clear to him that the current planning for 2020 was unrealistic. Mr. Robinowitz suggested that the City focus on discrete wetlands and interconnect them with habitat. He advocated for rezoning of all wetlands and buffer areas as natural areas. He maintained that groundwater recharge must be given priority if wetlands were to be maintained. Mr. Robinowitz questioned the accuracy of the City's wetlands inventory, averring he had personally seen wetlands surveys in other parts of the country done by unscrupulous surveyors in the pay of developers. Mr. Robinowitz believed there was a sufficient supply of buildable land in other parts of the community to accommodate commercial and industrial uses. Mr. Robinowitz said that because of climate change, the plan should include location in the 500-year flood plain, not the 100-year flood plain. Bob O'Brien, 3525 Gilham Road, asked the elected officials to read John Corliss' testimony. Mr. O'Brien advocated for stronger protection for the community's remaining wetlands. He said they were an important community resource. He said the elected officials should adopt the strongest language possible to protect the wetlands. Mr. O'Brien did not like the wording for protection criteria 1 and 4. He said that there were many studies showing that isolated parcels containing endangered plants were very important. The MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials-- August 4, 1999 Page 4 Eugene City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners plants were surviving in isolation. Regarding the issue of subsurface connections, Mr. O'Brien suggested that City staff or a consultant could give the elected officials some indication of how those connections could be measured. Wanda Ballentine, 955 Lewis Street, #4, said that the world was experiencing climate change. She emphasized the importance of wetlands to flood control. She said that wetlands serve as "sops" that absorb water and keep it flowing. She said that isolated sites serve that function as well, and asked the elected officials to keep in mind the potential of filling in such sites on nearby residents. Michael Roberts, 1919 Myers Road, suggested the issue before the elected officials was one of how to balance protection of the wetlands inside the urban growth boundary against the pressure that removing lands for development from the land supply placed upon on that boundary. He urged the elected officials to keep the larger picture in mind, and consider what was best for the community. Mr. Meisner closed public hearing for the City Council and indicated the record would be left open until August 11, 1999. He indicated no action would be taken until the close of the record. Mr. Green closed the public hearing for the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Bj6rklund said the elected officials had heard testimony proposing that they should adopt the strongest possible criteria for the protection of wetlands. He said that the recommendations of the planning commissions and council/board committee were intended to reflect the intent of the original plan, rather than to pursue the most stringent wetlands protection. He added that was his understanding of the parameters those groups had worked under. Mr. Kelly indicated that as an option the council/board committee could evaluate the testimony submitted and make a recommendation to the elected officials. He anticipated that process could be completed by fall. Mr. Kelly requested a staff response regarding Ms. O'Brien's remarks regarding the internal inconsistency in protection criterion 1. Mr. Bj6rklund pointed out that protection criterion 1 had been part of the planning commissions' recommendation and had been first considered by the council for adoption in 1998. It was not a product of the committee or a part of Board Alternative 2. Responding to Mr. Hauser's testimony that the criteria left much open to interpretation, Mr. Kelly suggested there was a danger in being too precise. He said that wetlands exist in degrees, and there must be a level of professional judgment exercised by staff in evaluating a site. Mr. Bj6rklund responded to testimony regarding underground hydrological connections. He said that staff provided background to the committee on the issue. That information was based on two hydrological studies conducted in the Willow Creek drainage, which concluded the hydrology in the wetlands was primarily driven by precipitation and surface hydrology. He said that while in general the connection between wetlands, recharge zones, and subsurface water was very important, it was staf?s conclusion that surface connections in west Eugene were more important, particularly when considering the impacts of development, which would be more likely to interrupt surface rather than groundwater flow. Mr. Bj6rklund noted that the criterion in the original plan referred to geographical and hydrological connections, not subsurface connections. He believed the criterion stated more explicitly the intent of the original plan criterion. MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials-- August 4, 1999 Page 5 Eugene City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners Ms. Nathanson agreed with Mr. Bj6rklund's remarks regarding the conditions under which the committee operated. She said the committee felt its charge was to clarify and improve the existing language and structure of and amendments in the context of what it was intended to be. The outcomes were intended to be the same as envisioned under the original plan. Mr. Sorenson concurred. Ms. Nathanson said the committee had asked staff more than once to help it understand if the revised criteria tipped the balance in the plan. The committee had also discussed the issues raised regarding hydrological connections, and what was intended by the plan. Mr. Sorenson suggested the plan was a model for cooperation and a model for protecting other open space outside the city limits on the periphery of the community. He suggested a task force on open space modeled on the committee be formed in the future. Mr. Sorenson suggested more work needed to be done to clarify the plan regarding the following issues: 1) isolated parcels; 2) the relationship between the supply of industrial land in the community and the West Eugene Wetlands Plan; and 3) subsurface hydrological connections. He indicated he was open to any process suggestion. Mr. Fart supported the continuation of the council/board committee as a forum to consider the issues raised in testimony. He indicated interest in a brief staff response substantiating the facts shared with the committee regarding subsurface hydrology and the primacy of surface water in west Eugene. Mr. Fart asked if staff would response to the specific concerns raised in the testimony submitted by FRESH. Mr. Bj6rklund said yes. Ms. Taylor supported the maximum protection of wetlands. She wanted a staff response to all the testimony raised. Ms. Taylor thanked those who testified and said the benefit of a public hearing was that it gave people an opportunity to point out flaws in the amendments or the existing criteria. Ms. Taylor advocated for a joint work session rather than the council/board committee setting as a means to process the issues under consideration. She said if the council and board could not reach agreement, she supported the approach suggested by Mr. Boles. Mr. Green recollected that a year past the council and board held a joint hearing during which many people had directed their comments to a single commissioner. He said that it had been suggested that the board and council continued to be at odds over the amendments, and he did not agree. Mr. Green believed the board had come to the hearing believing it would be moving toward a third ordinance reading and a final resolution of the issue. The board had reviewed the materials before the elected officials and there had been no discussion, only agreement with the recommendations of the council/board committee. He said that if the council/board committee decided to reconvene and do extra work he did not object, but he was prepared to move on. Mr. Green did not perceive a need for a joint work session and suggested that staff respond to the testimony in writing. Ms. Morrison thanked the council/board committee for its work on the matter at hand. She believed the committee met its charge and had succeeded in clarifying the language that had been in question; she agreed with Mr. Green that the board was prepared to move forward and another joint meeting was not necessary. Regarding the issue of subsurface hydrology, Ms. Morrison indicated her questions about the issue were satisfied when she read the committee's minutes. MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials-- August 4, 1999 Page 6 Eugene City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners Ms. Weeldreyer agreed with the remarks of Mr. Green and Ms. Morrison and said she believed the board was ready to adopt the amendments. She acknowledged the loss of wetlands but noted the large amount of public and private money invested in west Eugene. She believed the committee's work addressed the balance between the environment and development. Ms. Weeldreyer did not think another work session was needed, and endorsed Mr. Green's suggestion for a written staff response to testimony. Mr. Fart acknowledged that the board was prepared to move forward but said he believed some councilors still had questions that remained to be answered. He agreed there was no need for a joint work session. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, the elected officials had no opposition to the council/board committee reconvening to consider the testimony and make a recommendation. Responding to Mr. Sorenson's question regarding the relationship between the amendments, the Residential Lands Study, and State Goal 9, Mr. Bj6rklund said that as part of findings staff must complete for the amendments, it must do an analysis of consistency with statewide goals, including goals 9 and 10 regarding industrial, commercial, and residential lands. Staff must make a finding that there was sufficient land left in the buildable lands inventory when the amendments were completed to meet the demand in the planning period. He noted that the analysis does not get into acre-by-acre impact; that analysis would occur during consideration of the site-specific amendments. Mr. Meisner indicated he would appreciate the committee's review of the testimony with respect to its recommendations. He agreed that another joint work session was not needed. He observed that the process had been so lengthy that its length created confusion about what was under discussion. Lane County Land Management staff Michael Copely recommended the third reading and deliberation by the board occur on October 6, 1999. Ms. Morrison moved, seconded by Mr. Sorenson, to have the second reading and board action on October 6, 1999. The motion passed unanimously, 4:0. The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials-- August 4, 1999 Page 7 Eugene City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners