Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/18/98 Meeting MINUTES Joint Elected Officials Meeting Eugene City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners City Council Chamber--777 Pearl Street February 18, 1998 6p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Pat Farr, Nancy Nathanson, Tim Laue, Scott Meisner, Betty Taylor, Bobby Lee, Ken Tollenaar. COMMISSIONERS: Cindy Weeldreyer, Steve Cornacchia, Elli Dumdi, Bobby Green, Peter Sorenson. I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the City Council to order. Board Chair Steve Cornacchia called the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners to order. Mr. Cornacchia read Ordinance PA 1106, in the matter of amending the West Eugene Wetlands Plan by adopting new or revised plan policies, revising plan text, and adopting a severability clause. Jan Childs, Planning and Development Department, provided a brief staff introduction, stressing that the hearing was focused on changes to the policy ordinance only. She announced that subsequent hearings would focus on site-specific designations. Ms. Childs noted that changes to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan (WEWP) plan policy and text had been recommended by the Eugene and Lane County planning commissions to clarify the intent of the plan, allow planned transportation improvements, address utilities within protected wetlands, and provide additional policy direction for ongoing implementation of the plan. She stressed the importance of the plan policies as they established the regulatory framework for the plan. In particular, the criteria for designating wetlands for protection, restoration, or development would have a direct impact on individual properties; those amendments had generated the most public comment. Ms. Childs noted that the plan amendments must be approved by both the Board of County Commissioners and the City Council. An amendment to the plan could only occur if the council and board agreed to it. If the two bodies were unable to reach agreement on the changes, the existing plan language would stand. Ms. Childs read the criteria for refinement plan amendments. Ms. Childs referred the elected officials to a list of changes reflected in Exhibit A in the meeting packet. Amendments 62 and 64 recommend changes to the criteria used to determine which sites or portions or sites will be designated for development or protection, and to add criteria for MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials-- February 18, 1998 Page 1 Eugene City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners restoration as policy. She said that the planning commissions considered the amendments clarification of existing policy rather than substantive changes. Amendment 61 added a new policy establishing a planned transportation corridor designation to allow planned improvements on protected wetlands. Ms. Childs said that amendments 84, 85, and 86 address utilities within protected wetlands. Amendment 65 added a new policy specifying that plan designations apply only to jurisdictional wetlands and included an administrative process to update the plan map when new wetland delineations were approved by the regulatory agencies, the United States Army Corps of Engineers and Oregon Division of State Lands. Ms. Childs said that exhibits B-D reflected findings of consistency with Oregon Statewide Planning Goals, refinement plan amendment criteria, and approval criteria. Ms. Childs noted correspondence received from Dick Briggs (dated February 2, 1998) and from Steve Cornacchia (February 6, 1998), included in the agenda packet. Not included in the meeting packet but distributed at the meeting included e-mail correspondence dated February 13, 1998, from Jan Spencer; e-mail correspondence dated February 17 from Clayton Walker; e- mail correspondence dated February 15 from Bern Johnson; a letter dated February 18 from Eugene Water & Electric Board; and letters received that day from the Eugene Natural History Society, Mary O'Brien, and a yellow sheet comparing the plan criteria recommended by the planning commissions to the criteria suggested by Mr. Cornacchia in his letter. Ms. Childs said that testimony provided to the planning commissions was part of the record. She acknowledged that staff had received e-mail correspondence and postcards related to one site addressed in the plan; that correspondence will be retained as testimony when specific sites are considered. Mr. Torrey indicated that the elected officials would take testimony from those in favor of the amendments, from those neither in favor nor opposed, and from those opposed, in turn. Mr. Torrey asked the elected officials to declare conflicts of interest. Mr. Torrey indicated he owned property in the area of west Eugene involved in the plan amendments and asked if that represented a conflict. City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated that at the most there was potential conflict and, having declared it, Mr. Torrey could participate in the proceedings. Mr. Torrey opened the public hearing. Art Farley, 710 Woodhills Drive, President of the Eugene Planning Commission, said the commission was very supportive of the plan and the recommendations it had forwarded. He commended the plan for its balance. Mr. Farley said that the plan amendments focused on three issues: 1) changes to the protection and development policies; 2) suggested new mitigation and restoration policies; and 3) the utility corridors. Regarding the amendments related to the development and protection criteria, Mr. Farley said that the commission did not attempt to rewrite the criteria but rather wanted to clarify what the plan meant. He cited Protection Criteria 1 as an example. Mr. Farley said that Protection Criteria 7 was added because experience with the plan indicated there was a need for flexibility in some of the designations; for example, perhaps a wetland was not of the highest quality, but was located in a key area or represented an important system connection. Conversely, Mr. Farley said, some sites with wetland potential were deemed developable because of their isolation from other sites. Other changes were approved for the sake of flexibility and balance. MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials-- February 18, 1998 Page 2 Eugene City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners Elaine Phillips, 1075 West 18th Avenue, asked the elected officials to preserve and protect the current wetlands plan. She did not concur with the amendments proposed by Mr. Cornacchia. Ms. Phillips said that an extensive public process had occurred and much scientific study went into the plan. She asked the elected officials to honor the community process and protect wetlands. Kathy Madison, 1401 Willamette Street, said that the community had supported the WEWP as a means to balance environmental needs with sound urban development. She urged the elected officials to continue to seek that balance as it considered the amendments. Ms. Madison maintained that the criteria proposed by the planning commissions "took us in a new direction" and removed the balance that existed in the plan. She suggested that the amendments were inconsistent with Policy 1 and Policy 5 in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. She supported the policy in the plan related to underground utilities. Ms. Madison endorsed the suggestions made by Mr. Cornacchia in his letter to Ms. Childs dated February 6. Bern Johnson, 1290 East 25th Avenue, urged the elected officials to adopt the planning commissions' recommendations. He noted the Board of County Commissioners' support for the plan in 1992. He said that the plan as recommended by the planning commissions was sound and removed politics from the process. The plan forced the community to take an area-wide view of wetlands instead of focusing on single sites. Mr. Johnson noted that the plan had received national attention for its balance. He said that State and Federal agencies are placing their trust in Eugene to manage the program responsibly. He asked the elected officials to honor the community process and avoid last-minute changes to the amendments. Rejection of the amendments would further bog down the process. Misha Dunlap, 358 West 4th Avenue, agreed with Mr. Johnson's remarks. She said that it did not make sense to make additional changes at this point. She said that after the amendments were adopted, Mr. Cornacchia's suggestions could be considered in a similarly lengthy process. Mark Wahl, PO Box 10148, represented the Eugene Water & Electric Board. He said that EWEB supported the utility corridor amendments and had submitted written testimony indicating that support. He said that EWEB also had several changes to recommend. Mr. Wahl said that EWEB believed it was critical that the utility have access to aboveground utilities that cross jurisdictional wetlands for maintenance, repair, and emergency response. Given current State law and EWEB's determination to adhere to the law, the situation was not tenable for the utility as it was denied access to those facilities. Mr. Wahl asked that the elected officials postpone further hearings for at least six weeks to give it time to map all the utilities in the plan area and provide that information to City staff. Mr. Wahl asked that the amendment process be reconsidered as he believed the proposed text represented a de facto ban on new utility corridors. Moshe Immermann, no address given, said that wetlands sustain life. He said that there were many endangered species in wetlands, including people. Wetlands must be protected to protect the quality of life in the community. Mr. Immermann said that State and Federal regulatory agencies have called for protection of wetlands in Eugene. Twice the planning commissions have called for adoption of the draft criteria. He said that representative government was, in a sense, on trial. Mr. Immermann said that Mr. Cornacchia's recommendations threatened to undercut the entire process. He compared Mr. Cornacchia's's recommendations with the recommendations forwarded by the commissions and asked what was the point of having a plan if wetlands and wetland diversity were not to be protected. Mr. Immermann said that Mr. MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials-- February 18, 1998 Page 3 Eugene City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners Cornacchia also recommended that the interconnectiveness of underground waterways and aquifers be ignored, and those waterways should clearly be protected. He said that the criteria were designed with the expansion of Hyundai in mind. Mr. Immermann said that the semi- conductor industry has damaged underground aquifers wherever it has located. Jeff Miller, 2225 Lariat Drive, said that he was opposed to the recommendations of the planning commissions and supportive of the plan's original approach to preservation. He said that the original plan represented a "win-win" situation for the environment and for the business community. The plan allowed the community to put together a contiguous supply of quality wetlands and allowed development on marginal wetlands while maintaining the urban growth boundary. Mr. Miller said that the plan had been working and had been recognized nationally. He said that the amendments would not work and would not benefit anyone in the community. He recommended the elected officials return to the original plan intent and adopt criteria that maintained the intended balance. Mr. Miller endorsed Mr. Cornacchia's recommendations as "being on the right track." Mr. Miller suggested that the planning commissions were biased by a lack of information and given misinformation that prevented them from seeing what was best for the entire community. He urged the elected officials to show leadership and support a balanced approach. Mary O'Brien, 3525 Gilham Road, asked the elected officials to retain protection criteria 6, 7, and 8 as independent protection criteria. She did not support Mr. Cornacchia's proposal to collapse the three criteria into a single criteria. She noted that protection criteria 6 called for the protection of a wetland site that contributed to the diversity of wildlife habitat in the region, even if the wetland does not provide wet prairie. Ms. ©'Brien said that the wetland south of the Hyundai factory provided the only prairie habitat corridor between oak savannah habitat and the Willow Creek natural area. Protection criteria 7 called for protection of a wetland site that played an important role in the functioning of the larger wetland system because it combined several characteristics. The wetlands south of the Hyundai factory combined size, location, hydrological, and biological corridor connections with other wetlands and presence of rare plants and animals. Ms. ©'Brien said that protection criteria 8 called for protection of wetland sites that included the last remaining 0.03 percent prairie habitat in Oregon. She observed that the wetlands south of the Hyundai factory contained four acres of that habitat. Ms. ©'Brien said that the rationale behind Mr. Cornacchia's proposal to collapse the three criteria into one could be discovered by looking at the other changes he proposed. Mr. Cornacchia proposed eliminating the protection criteria that protected any wetland site with a hydrological connection to another wetland in spite of the fact that the formerly natural hydrological connection had been directed through pipes. If the criterion was adopted, Ms. ©'Brien said, the wetlands south of the Hyundai factor would fail to meet the protection criteria. Mr. Cornacchia suggested a new development criterion to allow expansion of existing business onto a wetland site so Hyundai can expand to the wetlands south of its present factory. Ms. ©'Brien said that additionally, Mr. Cornacchia proposed expanding another development criterion by suggesting that the campus industrial designation were as unique to economic development as wet prairie was to wetlands. Ms. ©'Brien said that Mr. Cornacchia's proposals had nothing to do with seeking a balance, nothing to do with retaining the ability of a planner to distinguish between different wetlands sites, nothing to do with meeting the WEWP goals, and nothing to do with two years of community and staff planning. The proposal appeared instead to crudely twist the WEWP amendments process to bend to the wishes of Hyundai to expand onto ecologically important wetlands. MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials-- February 18, 1998 Page 4 Eugene City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners Nena Lovenger, 49983 Little Fall Creek Road, Fall Creek, asked the elected officials to protect citizens from those who want to exploit the land in the tradition of late Governor Tom McCall. She said she continued to hope for leadership in the protection of valuable environmental assets. Ms. Lovenger asked the elected officials to accept the recommendations of the planning commissions and the directives of the relevant regulatory agencies. She asked that the plan not be weakened by further incursions into the wetlands. Ms. Lovenger asked the elected officials to reject Mr. Cornacchia's proposal to change the wetland rules to accommodate Hyundai. David Hauser, 1401 Willamette Street, represented the Chamber of Commerce. He maintained that the plan amendments were inconsistent with Statewide Goal 9 related to economic development. He said that the staff assertion that the industrial land supply was sufficient did not appear to have taken into account loss of industrial land in West Eugene. Mr. Hauser noted the impact of wetlands on five of the three campus industrial sites in the plan area, and stressed the importance of campus industrial zoning to the economic health of the community. He said that such zoning was needed to attract high technology firms that paid family wage jobs. Mr. Hauser said that the Chamber of Commerce and business community supported WEWP as a attempt to balance environmental and development needs. He said the proposed amendments lost sight of the balance. While the Growth Management Study policies supported retention of the existing urban growth boundary, that could not occur if the criteria were skewed against development and marginal wetlands given higher priority than sound urban development. Mr. Hauser endorsed Mr. Cornacchia's recommendations as providing needed balance. Judith Henshal, 2622 Osson Street, identified herself as a botanist and wetland consultant. She said that the criteria recommended by the planning commissions were valuable and should be retained. She was opposed to Mr. Cornacchia's recommendations. Ms. Henshal referred to Mr. Cornacchia's recommendation to narrow the number of potentially impacted plant and animal species by eliminating the use of the Oregon Natural Heritage Program lists 1 and 2 and relying on the Federal and State list, and said that few endangered species in Oregon had been through the political process of getting listed. The listing process was far behind what was actually occurring in terms of habitat loss and the loss of species. Ms. Henshal said that the Oregon Natural Heritage Program lists were instituted when the Native Plant Society of Oregon realized that the Federal listing process was too slow and cumbersome to protect the plant species on Oregon's rare and endangered list. She said that List 1 contained species that were threatened with extinction or presumed to be extinct throughout their range. Mr. Cornacchia's proposal would allow for further loss of Kincaid's lupine and the insect that depended upon it, Fenders Blue Butterfly. Ms. Henshal said that three other plant species, two of which were endemic to the area, would not be considered for protection under Mr. Cornacchia's recommendations. Continuing, Ms. Henshal said that List 2 contained species that were threatened with extirpation or were presumed to be extirpated from Oregon. Those plants could be significant when protecting the genetic diversity of a taxon. For example, Cicendia quadrangularis was found in only 19 places in Oregon. Ms. Henshal said that much work and thought had gone into the creation of the lists. The species on the list were rare and required protection, and should be considered through a separate criterion for protection. Regarding Mr. Cornacchia's proposal that a site shall not be designated for restoration if it had high or moderate values for three development criteria, Ms. Henshal said that many sites meet development criteria 2, 3, 4, and 5. They are restorable wetlands by roads and adjacent to development, disconnected from other wetlands. Ms. Henshal said that such fragmented MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials-- February 18, 1998 Page 5 Eugene City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners wetlands should not be rejected as restoration sites because the community did not have the foresight in the past to protect more wetlands. Jim Reed, 1732 Long Island Drive, identified himself as a fresh water ecologist and marine scientist. He said that Mr. Cornacchia's recommendation would eliminate protection for any wetland with a road running alongside of it, which constituted most of the wetlands in Eugene. He asked when a stream was considered natural and when it was not. Mr. Reed pointed out that most of the water channels and streams in Eugene had been ditched, moved, or put into culverts to accommodate road construction and agricultural. He said that a 1993 Nature Conservancy report for Lane Council of Governments analyzed historic waterway patterns and indicated that in 1850 there was a significant lack of natural waterways in the area. Mr. Reed said that when the area was drained, ditches were created. Further, the wet prairies that were characteristic of the plan area were flooded in winter and the streams that drained them were dry in the summer. He said that Mr. Cornacchia's recommendations would isolate already protected wetlands, lead to hydrological disconnection, and damage hydrological integrity. Mr. Reed asked the elected officials to follow the recommendations of the planning commissions. He said that the changes proposed by Mr. Cornacchia had no scientific merit. Mr. Reed noted that the remaining wet prairie in Eugene represented the last of a vast wet prairie system that reached all the way to the Puget Trough in Washington. One-third of the Willamette Valley was covered with wetland prairies when settlers arrived. The original acreage was reduced to about 900 scattered acres between Salem and Eugene, or about .03 percent of the total. Robert Moulton, 294 Sterling Drive, said that the Metropolitan Area General Plan provided for a balance between the economy and environment. The Metro Plan called for the community to broaden and diversity the economy while enhancing the environment. Mr. Moulton said that he had been involved with the development of WEWP since its inception, and it had been supported by the business community. The WEWP called for a balance of uses and the protection of the best wetland sites in the area. As a result, Mr. Moulton said, the community had protected most of the most valuable wetlands and that land is no longer available for development. He believed that the proposed amendments violated the intent of the WEWP and the Metro Plan. Mr. Moulton endorsed Mr. Cornacchia's suggestions as most close to intent of the original plan and said that they should be adopted Bayard McConneaghy, 1653 Fairmount Boulevard, UO Professor of biology, said that the plan was developed with the assistance of several regulatory agencies and many scientists, and a last minute proposal to scuttle the plan in favor of increased development would be a great mistake and a policy change that was not justified. He supported the public process used to develop the plan and noted his continuing participation in the process. Mr. McConneaghy found it upsetting that Mr. Cornacchia proposed to alter the balance of the plan. He believed that Mr. Cornacchia's recommendations were intended to accommodate Hyundai's proposed Phase III. He said that, if adopted, the policies proposed by Mr. Cornacchia would destroy the scientific basis of plan and open the way for decisions based on politics. He said that the plan intended to minimize adverse impacts and preserve endangered species. Mr. McConneaghy said that Oregon had lost most of the wet prairie habitat that would be protected by the criteria Mr. Cornacchia proposed to eliminate. He was also concerned that the proposal would eliminate the criteria that recognized natural underground hydrological connections. MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials-- February 18, 1998 Page 6 Eugene City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners Gerry Gaydos, 2820 Emerald Street, said that at the time the plan was adopted there was no immediate development pressure in the plan area. He said that the plan probably achieved the best possible balance at that time. Mr. Gaydos was concerned that people were attacking the process. He support Mr. Cornacchia's courage in offering the community a proposal it could respond to. Mr. Gaydos said that if the criteria proposed by Mr. Cornacchia were actually developed for Hyundai, that would be doing a disservice to the WEWP and to the community. He suggested that given the dramatic development pressure in west Eugene, it was perhaps not the best time to amend the plan. He agreed that wetlands protection was needed, but he questioned how the community could maintain the balance the plan attempted to achieve. He encouraged the elected officials to consider Mr. Cornacchia's proposals even if they did not accept them. Paul Engelking, 32 North Alder Street, Lowell, identified himself as a chemistry professor at the University of Oregon. He addressed Mr. Cornacchia's proposal to modify protection criteria 5. Mr. Engelking was opposed to changes to the criteria that could harm a wetland, and a wetland could be harmed or destroyed by cutting off its water supply, whether the source was a pipe or a spring. Mr. Engelking cautioned the elected officials against making last-minute amendments that have not received public review. He asked the elected officials to consider those recommendations that have been reviewed by many committees and experts and to refrain from making large-scale modifications that would have a broad effect, such as Mr. Cornacchia's proposed changes to protection criteria 5. Kathy Brubaker, 1255 Pearl Street, represented the Lane County Homebuilders Association. She called for a balance between the Metro Plan and the WEWP. Ms. Brubaker said that if development could not occur within the urban growth boundary, it would occur outside the boundary and Eugene would lose the economic benefit of compact urban development. She asked the elected officials to provide the business community with fairness and predictability. Ms. Brubaker asserted that no on-site wetland delineation has been done for the Phase III Hyundai site; therefore, the proposed criteria were based on assumptions alone. She further asserted that the criteria were developed using information from 1989 without taking into account the acreage that had been eliminated from the land supply. John Newsome, 2999 Gilham Road, said that he had participated in the public review process for the last two years and was outraged that two years of public planning could be discarded because of greed. Charlie McGee, 2679 University Street, said that without wetlands and plant life there would be no jobs on the planet. He discussed global environmental degradation and said that activities favorable to the environment were on the increase. Mr. McGee said that the wealthy communities of the future would have clean water, good parks, fewer homeless citizens, wildlife, and wetlands. He said that Eugene could be one of those communities. He asked the elected officials to consider future generations. Ann Sellers, 2495 Columbia Street, objected to restoration criteria 4 and said that as development occurred there would be places accessible by roadways and no restriction should be placed on restoration in appropriate sites. She objected to Mr. Cornacchia's new proposed development criteria as overly random and not focused on the most important functions. Ms. Sellers said that no matter how legal it was, she objected to Mr. Torrey's participation in the process. MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials-- February 18, 1998 Page 7 Eugene City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners Jan Spencer, 283 North Polk Street, said that if the community wanted to create a balance between business and the environment it would have to demolish some businesses and restore some wetlands. He reminded the elected officials of the results of the Growth Management Study, which indicated citizens want a clean environment and local businesses. Mr. Spencer said that Mr. Cornacchia's proposals are at odds with the stated desires of citizens. He asked the elected officials to support the recommendations of the planning commissions and to not sacrifice the plan to economic interests. Milton Oilar, 3609 Westleigh Street, said that he had only been in the community a short time but believed Hyundai had bent over backwards to accommodate the concerns of Eugene citizens. He said that Hyundai would provide jobs to the community. He commended the leadership demonstrated by Mr. Cornacchia in striking a balance between the environment and economy. Mr. Oilar said that the elected officials should not succumb to scare tactics. Evelyn McConneaghy, 1653 Fairmount Boulevard, opposed Mr. Cornacchia's proposed changes to the criteria. She said that his recommendations would gut the intent of the plan and would eliminate the last remaining wet prairie in the area. Ms. McConneaghy said that the proposed added development criteria would allow any business with wetlands to fill those wetlands for future expansion on a speculative basis. She also objected to his proposal to remove hydrological connections created by pipes and roads. She asked the elected officials to adopt the recommendations of the planning commissions, and to not change the recommendations without the benefit of scientific expertise. Allan Thayer, no address given, said that the changes proposed to the plan made it more difficult to develop land in Eugene. He said that as the supply of available land shrank, the impact of the plan was greater. Mr. Thayer said that development would not stop, but would go elsewhere. He believed that the language suggested by Mr. Cornacchia would help Eugene sustain the principles of compact urban form. Eben Arkin, 29136 Gimpl Hill Road, discussed his experience at a wetland site and said he would not like to see a factory at the wetland. Leslie Hartwig, 2260 Elysium Street, said he was impressed by the thought and effort put into the issue by Mr. Cornacchia and supported his recommendations. Ruth Duemler, 1745 Fir Crest, stressed the importance of clean water to the community. She said that wetlands were crucial to clean water and Eugene should preserve them for future generations. She said that Eugene had spent considerable money and effort to preserve wetlands. She asked the elected officials to accept the planning commissions' recommendations. Ms. Duemler objected to the last minute changes proposed by Mr. Cornacchia and said that it was insulting to those who put so much effort into the public process. Ray Wolfe, 1473 Luella Street, discussed the importance of alkaloids to ecosystems and said that they should be handled as though they were irreversible. He said that the majority of wetlands in the Willamette Valley had been destroyed. Mr. Wolfe said that Mr. Cornacchia's criteria would allow development to occur on valuable wetlands, and that development could occur elsewhere. He said that the recommendations would set a dangerous precedent by subordinating the long-term human value of this and other ecosystems to short-term, economic convenience. Mr. Wolfe called for better stewardship for future generations. MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials-- February 18, 1998 Page 8 Eugene City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners John Larson, 440 Broadway, said that balance was needed in the plan, and the plan addressed an urban area where growth was inevitable. He said that the elected officials' task was to manage that growth, not eliminate it. He endorsed Mr. Cornacchia's recommendations as an attempt toward balance. He said that the City should take advantage of the infrastructure that served the west Eugene area. Mr. Larson preferred planned and managed development inside the urban growth boundary. He expressed concern about the supply of vacant buildable land in Eugene. Greg McLaughlan, 2401 West 22nd Avenue, represented the Friends of Oregon, and supported the planning commissions' recommendations. He said that the plan was scientifically sound, was supported by the regulatory agencies, and represented the minimal effort necessary to preserve wetlands. Mr. McLaughlan believed that Mr. Cornacchia's proposal would dismantle key protections of plan. He maintained that the proposals were made because one wealthy, powerful corporation wanted to see the plan rewritten. He said that if one company could pressure public officials to rewrite the rules, the community was on a sad path. Adoption of the changes would erode both the environment and the public trust. Bob O'Brien, 3525 Gilham Road, said that the bulk of his testimony was an abstract he had written for the Sierra Club newsletter. He read the conclusion of the article: "So we must ask ourselves, if a large and powerful corporation wants the option of buildings on this site, is it reason enough to allow them to do so? Should they not be subjected to the same rules that all other businesses and landowners operate under? These rules were designed to protect the wetlands for all of us, for the wildlife, and for other ecological values." He said that of 1.1 million acres of original wet prairie in Oregon, approximately 1,000 acres remained. Mr. ©'Brien noted that a January 28 article in The Register-Guard indicated that the best area left for three threatened species was The Nature Conservancy preserve, directly across from Hyundai's Phase III site. He asked the elected officials to adopt rules that would protect some of the site. He asked the elected officials to reject the proposals made by Mr. Cornacchia for the protection of the remaining wetlands for reasons of fairness. He said that it was not right to change the rules for one company. Jan Wostmann, 2645 Riverview Street, was outraged that last-minute amendments have been proposed after two years of public process and citizens were allowed only three minutes to respond to the proposals. He believed that the original criteria in WEWP were reasonably balanced, and while the amendments lean somewhat more to development at expense of protection, they were still relatively balanced. Mr. Wostmann said that Mr. Cornacchia's proposals skewed the plan in favor of development. He suggested that if the elected officials wished to achieve balance, they should adopt the recommendations of the planning commissions. Mr. Wostmann said that if the community were to achieve a balance, it would protect the small amount of wet prairie left. Kathy Ging, 2878 Harris Street, said that Mr. Cornacchia's attempts to accommodate Hyundai were regrettable, particularly since the company has already created so much controversy. She noted that the campus light industrial zone was considered inappropriate by many for Hyundai given the nature of its business. She said that those involved with drafting the designation were shocked to know its applications. Ms. Ging said that Mr. Cornacchia's proposals were in direct opposition to the intent of the plan and would signal the country that developers could continue to pollute in Eugene. She said that only a few people in the community would benefit from the changes proposed by Mr. Cornacchia. She said that the elected officials were public servants, not Hyundai employees. MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials-- February 18, 1998 Page 9 Eugene City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners Melody Clarkson, PO Box 3082, Eugene, represented the Eugene Natural History Society, said her society supported the plan as recommended by the planning commissions. She said that wetlands served many purposes and were complex environments for plants and animals. The society members residing in the area affected by the plan recognize that the appointed and elected officials must recognize economic implications of the plan. To that end, the society supported use of the WEWP inventory to depict current and accurate wetland boundaries. Ms. Clarkson said the society opposed the plan amendments proposed by Mr. Cornacchia, not only for their implications for further wetland degradation, but because of the disdain they demonstrated toward the existing policies reflected in the WEWP, which was a result of community and scientific input. Regarding Mr. Cornacchia's remarks in his letter to Ms. Childs regarding the need for balance, Ms. Clarkson said that every time a wetland was compromised by development, it lost something that was previously existing, and development gained something it never had. She perceived a striking imbalance in Mr. Cornacchia's proposal. Mike Farthing, PC) Box 1147, Eugene, representing Oscar Saudri, owner of the Eugene Speedway property. He suggested that site-specific changes be eliminated from the nonpolicy changes proposed to the plan. Mr. Farthing pointed out that all the sites in the plan were urban or urbanizable. He believed that people who supported preservation of wetlands to all other uses were latecomers who did not recognize the long-term planning and money that had gone into the area. Mr. Farthing said that as property was removed from the buildable lands inventory, where was the replacement land to be found? He said that the community must compensate for the loss of that land because he believed the community would continue to grow. Mr. Farthing said that the elected officials must consider many plans and policies and strike a balance between those competing policies. Mr. Cornacchia left the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Lisa Arkin, 29136 Gimpl Hills Road, said that the elected officials should not assume that environmentally minded people oppose all development. She asked the board and council to accept the plan amendments as recommended by the planning commissions and to reject Mr. Cornacchia's proposals. She said that they would nullify the impact of the plan. Ms. Arkin believed that submitting the proposals at this point demonstrated disregard for the public process. She questioned a process that reworked the plan for the sake of a single company wishing to expand, and suggested that adoption of the proposals would mean the community could not meet the goal of balance at the heart of the plan. Ms. Arkin noted Mr. Cornacchia's suggestion that planned expansions be allowed made it possible for anyone with a dream or desire to fill a wetland. She said that was not balance but was a lack of planning. Jennifer Guard, 132 East Broadway, Suite 423, said that she owned a wetland consulting business and had served as the consultant for the City inventory and worked with dedicated City staff on the plan. She questioned the changes proposed by Mr. Cornacchia, terming them "eyebrow raising" and expressed suspicion that they were raised so late in the process. Ms. Guard said that wetland ecologies were complex and balancing the environment value with an economic value was very difficult. Ms. Guard asked the elected officials to extend the comment period for two weeks so the community could examine the changes proposed to facilitate Hyundai's expansion. MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials-- February 18, 1998 Page 10 Eugene City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners Mr. Cornacchia returned to the meeting at 7:57 p.m. Beth Medler, 4441 Fox Hollow Road, #6, questioned why Mr. Cornacchia's was acting on behalf o Hyundai. She said that the elected officials were being asked by Mr. Cornacchia to ignore their constituents and the interests of the public and change the wetland regulatory rules for Hyundai. She said that Hyundai should be capable of working within the community's's laws, expectations, and standards. Tom Pringle, 3295 Kincaid Street, said that local wetland planning was in jeopardy. He said that it was a privilege to have a local planning process. He said that control should be given back to the Federal agencies where the process can be objective and even-handed. He indicated that he represented a group that was exploring its legal options regarding the planning process. Mr. Pringle said that the amendments process had been polarized and was out of control. He said that it was an unfortunate situation for those property owners who have worked within the system. Mr. Pringle said that if the City lost control of the process, it was the fault of elected officials taking control away from professional staff. Mayor Torrey called for a brief recess at 8 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:10 p.m. Cindy Armento, 25031 Woodland Street, Veneta, expressed concern about the changes proposed by Mr. Cornacchia. She could see no reason for the changes as she believed they would result in further wetlands degradation. Ms. Armento said that Hyundai knew the existing rules when it purchased the wetlands for construction of a factory. She said that all should have to abide by the rules. Emily Fox, 455 East 31st Avenue, was opposed to Mr. Cornacchia's proposals and said he did not have a clear idea of ecology. She said that while Mr. Cornacchia expressed concern about the fact the supply of campus industrial land was eroded by wetlands, the fact was wetlands came first. She suggested that conversely, campus industrial had eroded the health of wetlands through the country. Ms. Fox echoed Ms. Arkin's remarks regarding development criteria 4. She said that it was so vague any could say they had an idea and so should be able to develop their property as desired. Ms. Fox asked the elected officials to accept the recommendations of the planning commissions, which were crafted with the benefit of public involvement. David Zupan, 870 West 23rd Avenue, represented Eugene Peaceworks. He supported the plan amendments as recommended by the planning commissions. He wanted to preserve what was left of the wetlands and protect the public trust. He was concerned about the possible betrayal of public trust by Mr. Cornacchia. He said that Mr. Cornacchia's recommendations were a "slap in the face" to his constituents, an example of "good old boy" politics, and contrary to sound scientific planning. He said that the recommendations did not represent a balance. Deborah Higbee, 1281 Dalton Street, represented the Many Rivers Group of the Sierra Club. She said that some places should not have buildings on them because plants and animals depend on those places. She believed that the community would further devalue its wetlands if it accepted Mr. Cornacchia's recommendations. Ms. Higbee said that campus industrial uses should not be sited on wetlands. She said the plan represents years of work, citizen input, and MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials-- February 18, 1998 Page 11 Eugene City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners collaboration between Eugene and Lane County, as opposed to last minute attempt to place development above other values. Teryl Saxon-Hill, 29188 Willow Creek Road, said that Mr. Cornacchia's proposals were contrary to the intent of the WEWP, particularly those policies calling for minimization of impact, expansion of habitat for plants, and connectivity. She referred to a recent article in The Oregonian, which indicated that Hyundai's construction delays were costly, and that Hyundai Semiconductor of America lacked the viable tools to select an appropriate site. She said that the elected officials would continue to violate the public trust if they tried to change the plan to benefit Hyundai. Ms. Saxon-Hill asked the elected officials to honor the planning process, and remember the importance of environmental protection and controlled growth to Eugene citizens. She indicated she would submit an article published in the January 12, 1998, edition of USA Today entitled "Dirty secrets exposing the dark side of the clean computer industry." John Saemann, 1775 Adkins Street, said that wetlands perform vital environmental functions. People need wetlands for flood control. Wetlands filter contaminants from runoff and hold water, mitigating the effect of pesticides and herbicides. Mr. Saemann asked the elected officials to take a long perspective on the plan amendments, and understand that what they do today will affect everyone in the long-term. He said that land owners have been operating under the plan for six years, and the rules have been applied to all. He said that the Growth Management Study process had indicated what the public wanted. Mr. Saemann asked the elected officials to accept the recommendations of their planning commissions. Shawn Boles, 105 North Adams Street, said that he opposed allowing Hyundai to opt out of the plan because the company came to the plan. He said that Hyundai either failed to practice due diligence or was misinformed by the business community about the nature of the wetlands on the site. Mr. Boles said that Eugene citizens expected Hyundai to abide by community plans. He opposed the criteria suggested by Mr. Cornacchia. Mr. Boles said that economics depend on the environment, not the converse. He said that it was the council's responsibility to make a decision regarding Hyundai's proposed Phase III, and the proposed plan amendment indicated the Phase III area should be restored. Mr. Boles said that decision was not reached lightly. He noted that Hyundai failed to participate in the process through which the recommendation was reached. Mr. Boles believed that the City had the legal authority to divide the amendments package to separate those amendments within the urban growth boundary. He asked the council to seek advice from a land use attorney. He asked the elected officials to honor the community process, product, and the recommendations of the planning commissions. Mr. Boles said that it was the elected officials' charge to protect the public good as opposed to shod-term private gain. Mary Bentsen, 950 West 16th Avenue, said she was disturbed by Mr. Cornacchia's proposals, which appeared to be an attempt to shape the plan to meet the needs of one large company. She asked that the elected officials consider the history of the plan and respect that history as well as the time, attention, and expertise that has gone into the planning process. She asked the elected officials to reject Mr. Cornacchia's proposals. Misha Seymour, 1313 Lincoln Street, #306, asked the elected officials to adopt the planning commissions' recommendation. He said that environmental protection was needed. He suggested that other uses, such as organic farms, could be located in the plan area. Mr. Seymour supported a MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials-- February 18, 1998 Page 12 Eugene City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners "three strikes, you're out" approach to companies who violated environmental rules. He endorsed the remarks of others in support of the planning commissions' recommendations. Katherine Macdonald, 821 SE 14th Avenue, Portland, The Nature Conservancy, described The Nature Conservancy's work with the City and landowners in the West Eugene area. She said that The Nature Conservancy had made significant investments in west Eugene and currently owned 300 acres in the Willow Creek area. The conservancy was part of the West Eugene Wetlands Partnership and had brought in many other entities and resources to the partnership, such as technical expertise. Ms. Macdonald said that The Nature Conservancy held the plan up as a model to other communities because of the public process involved. She said that while The Nature Conservancy did not agree with all the amendments, it supported their adoption. She noted her submittal of testimony during the early planning commissions' public input process. Ms. Macdonald asked that the elected officials extend the period of public comment for two weeks. She also asked that the elected officials avoid making further changes to the plan because of their impact on The Nature Conservancy's investments in the plan area and the negative message it would send to those owners who had already complied with the plan. Ginger Gietzman, and daughter Emma, 1540 McKinley Street, represented the Concerned McKinley Streets Neighbors. She said that the neighbors opposed the amendments proposed by Mr. Cornacchia. She said that the neighbors were involved in the protection and maintenance of Amazon Creek and because of their location were directly impacted by plan amendments. She said that the plan had resulted in a balance between development and protection. Ms. Gietzman supported the plan amendments as recommended by the planning commissions. She submitted written testimony in support of her position signed by 24 neighbors. Martin Champion, 1430 Willamette Street, #597, said that laws were intended to apply to all and elected officials were supposed to tailor the laws to the community that they are in. He said that the wetland planning process was a long-term process and an attempt to meet the needs of all. Mr. Champion said that it was the job of those who wished to develop to fit their developments into existing laws, not to try to get the laws changed to fit them. He asked the elected officials to reject Mr. Cornacchia's recommendations. Paul Prensky, 933 East 29th Avenue, urged the elected officials to accept the planning commissions' recommendations. Jackson Frewell, no address given, suggested that the plan was not needed and that people could live elsewhere if the community was no longer habitable because of greed. Barbara Keller, 2570 Onyx Street, reminded the elected officials that the local community did not invent wetlands regulations but had attempted to create certainty for development in west Eugene. She said that to that end, the City worked hard to gain the trust of the regulatory agencies. Ms. Keller termed the plan a contract between the City and the regulatory agencies. Ms. Keller said that the planning commissions had reached a remarkable degree of consensus. She believed that Mr. Comacchia's proposed amendments would undo the balance in the plan and two years of work. She said that his proposal to allow a planned expansion onto a wetland was a guarantee of expansion space for a business no matter the quality of the wetlands involved. She objected to his proposal to remove consideration of pipe ways and underground hydrology as a determinant factor in making a decision to protect a wetland. MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials-- February 18, 1998 Page 13 Eugene City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners Ms. Keller said that the hearing was not a forum for determining the location of industrial growth in the community. She said other venues existed for that purpose. She supported redevelopment of brown field sites that currently existed, not the creation of new brown field sites. Alan Stein, 1049 Almaden, indicated he owned a video store on 14th Avenue. He supported the planning commissions's recommendations. He said that everyone else has to follow the rules. Mr. Stein asked the elected officials to protect the public process, obey Federal regulations, and consider the future of our children. Tania Baildon, 128 Bushnell Lane, spoke against Mr. Cornacchia's recommendation that roads and pipes under roads should not be considered as connections in the plan. She opposed his suggestion to combine protection criteria 6, 7, and 8, noting it would be more difficult for a site to meet five of seven criteria as opposed to five of ten criteria. Ms. Baildon said that Mr. Cornacchia's amendments made it more easy for a site to be developed because only three development criteria must be met. She believed the approach skewed the balance in the plan. Ms. Childs noted that the elected officials had received a request to hold the written record open for 14 days. She recommended the extension. All the elected officials agreed to hold the record open for 14 days for additional written testimony. Mr. Torrey closed the public hearing. Mr. Cornacchia said that his letter to Ms. Childs had reflected his own concerns. He had waited until the hearing to bring up those concerns so that the elected officials could consider them. He questioned the tolerance of those who indicated their disagreement with him. Mr. Cornacchia maintained that he had culled the majority of his recommendations from a careful review of the minutes of the two planning commissions. He said that during the commissions' deliberations the criteria had not been discussed very much, and he had been concerned about that. Mr. Cornacchia said that people criticized him for wanting to change the plan, but he pointed out that the plan amendments themselves changed the plan. He said that he was not committed to his recommendations but wished to put them forward for consideration. Mr. Cornacchia asked what the community was coming to when a person put forward their thoughts and was ridiculed publicly because people disagreed. Mr. Cornacchia noted that he had talked to a representative of Hyundai approximately two months previous, who indicated to him that Hyundai did not object to the recommendations of the planning commissions. Mr. Cornacchia agreed with Ms. O'Brien's remarks related to connectivity and indicated his strong respect for the O'Briens. He said that he was committed to his recommendation that protection criteria be combined in a single protection criteria so the number of protection criteria was equal to the number of development criteria. He believed that an equal number of protection and development criteria would "level the playing field." Mr. Cornacchia believed it was important to keep in mind the importance of specialized light industrial to the community. He reminded the audience of the poor economic conditions that prevailed in the 1980s and said he would not apologize for being supportive of jobs in the community. MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials-- February 18, 1998 Page 14 Eugene City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners Mr. Cornacchia concluded by saying that he was not representing Hyundai, but was representing the interests of his constituents and abiding by the laws of the State and the Constitution. Ms. Nathanson regretted that many of those who offered testimony had left and were unable to benefit from the discussion. She said the elected officials often have full discussions that people were unaware of, so they were not aware of the rationale behind the decisions made. Ms. Nathanson raised the following questions for staff response at a later date. She asked if the City would still be in compliance with Federal and State laws if the board and council would be unable to reach agreement on the amendments. She asked if the planning commissions had taken into account State Goal 9 in its deliberations. Ms. Nathanson asked staff to discuss whether the amendments changed the balance in the plan or maintain the balance and clarify what the City was attempting to achieve originally. She asked about the purpose of the amendments: were they intended to limit or discourage development, or clarify and amplify existing policy? Ms. Nathanson asked staff to be prepared to discuss the actual potential for shifting development to outlying areas and increasing sprawl and intercity transit if the plan amendments were adopted. Ms. Nathanson asked staff for information on mitigation. She wanted to be reassured that mitigation was occurring and no net loss was occurring; rather, she suggested, there should be notable gains in the acreage of wetlands because mitigation occurs at a more than 1:1 ratio. Ms. Nathanson responded to comments offered in testimony questioning the appropriateness of Mr. Cornacchia's submitting his proposals two weeks prior to the hearing. She said that the purpose of the public hearing was to discover flaws in what was written, even if it had gone through extensive public debate. She said that the elected officials often receive such proposals and, while they do not always make the requested changes, it was not unheard of. She disagreed that it was inappropriate to raise additional ideas at this point, saying that the elected officials were supposed to enter into the public hearing with an open mind and willingness to consider new ideas. Ms. Nathanson said that the public hearing was not held to consider Mr. Cornacchia's proposals, but to consider the plan amendments that were in development for many months. She said that the elected officials were not going to abandon the protections in place, but were considering changes to those protections that some were interpreting as being more restrictive. Mr. Lee indicated interest in pursuing Mr. Boles' recommendation that the council seek a legal opinion about the issue of local control. Mr. Lee said that policies were a reflection of people's values. He understood Mr. Cornacchia's concerns and believed that he had made several good points. He agreed that it was important to have been communicating through this plan development process, but reminded Mr. Cornacchia he has been discourteous in the past and recognize ability to make mistakes. Mr. Laue said that the most important issue he perceived was whether the community could retain the value of the plan as it is now as a way to address the issue of wetlands within the urban growth boundary. MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials-- February 18, 1998 Page 15 Eugene City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners Mr. Green referred to testimony from Tom Pringle regarding the failure of the plan and expressed a desire for clarification because it was his understanding that the WEWP was a national model. Mr. Green concurred with Mr. Cornacchia's regarding the personal nature of the attacks on him. Mr. Green questioned why there was no minority report from the planning commissions. He believed that there were good ideas to be found in the plan amendments as well as in Mr. Cornacchia's recommendations. He was interested in finding balance. Mr. Tollenaar said that while he disagreed with Mr. Cornacchia's proposals, he believed he was to be commended for bringing up the issues he raised in advance of the public hearing so that everyone could respond. Mr. Farr also commended Mr. Cornacchia for raising the issues he had, and said he appreciated the public's comments in response. Mr. Meisner also was interested in pursuing Mr. Boles' suggestion. He asked that the County and City counsels consult on the topic. Ms. Taylor believed that people were upset by the change in the focus of the hearing. She said that people were also upset because they perceive the criteria were weakened and because they could not discuss specific. She said that mitigated wetlands were not like original wetlands. She agreed with Mr. Boles that the economy was dependent on the environment. Ms. Taylor was also interested in pursuing Mr. Boles' suggestion that the City determine whether it could make individual decisions on sites within the City's urban growth boundary. Mr. Sorenson acknowledged the WEWP as a national model. He asked when the elected officials would meet again. Ms. Dumdi said that she had both thoughtful testimony and sarcastic and rude testimony that was unacceptable and unnecessary. She acknowledged the contributions of Steve Gordon of Lane Council of Governments, who has been recognized nationally as a wetlands expert and whose opinion was valued in many circles. Ms. Dumdi termed Mr. Gordon the architect of the plan, and said that because he did such a good job, he also received the attention of the elected officials in Washington, DC, who directed funds toward the Bureau of Land Management that made the acquisition program possible. Ms. Weeldreyer said that as a former resident of New Orleans, she was well aware of the impact of wetland fill; as member of the McKenzie Watershed Council, she recognized that people could not ignore nature. Ms. Weeldreyer said that as representative of some of the county's rural areas, she was aware of the need to balance jobs that can sustain families against environmental needs. She suggested that everyone had a different definition of balance. Mr. Torrey reminded the audience that if the two bodies did not agree on the proposed plan amendments, there would be no amendments and the existing plan would be in effect. Mr. Torrey said that while he respected the recommendations of the planning commissions, the elected officials have the task of reviewing and adjusting the plan amendments package as seemed appropriate. MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials-- February 18, 1998 Page 16 Eugene City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners Mr. Torrey said that he had also spoken to a Hyundai representative, who indicated that Hyundai did not care which amendments the elected officials chose to support. Mr. Torrey thanked those in attendance for their civility and lack of demonstration. Ms. Childs announced that the written record would close on Wednesday, March 4, 1998, at 5 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 9:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Warren Wong Acting City Manager Pro Tern (Recorded by Kimberly Young) r:1998~ASD~CIS~Councfl~JEO MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials-- February 18, 1998 Page 17 Eugene City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners