Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 04/08/98 Work Session MINUTES Joint Elected Officials Eugene City Council/Lane Board of County Commissioners McNutt Room--City Hall April 8, 1998 11:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Pat Fart, Tim Laue, Bobby Lee, Laurie Swanson Gribskov, Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Betty Taylor, Ken Tollenaar. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Steve Cornacchia, Bobby Green, Peter Sorenson, Cindy Weeldreyer, Elli Dumdi. I. CALL TO ORDER The Eugene City Council meeting was called to order at 11:50 a.m.; Mayor James D. Torrey presiding. The meeting of the Board of County Commissioners was called to order at 11:50 a.m.; Board Chair Commissioner Steve Cornacchia presiding. II. NONACTION ITEMS A. DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON FEBRUARY 18, 1998, FOR THE WEST EUGENE WETLANDS PLAN AMENDMENTS: RECOMMENDED POLICY CHANGES For the record, 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, Eugene Planning and Development Department, asked that the Board of County Commissioners and Eugene City Council identify and discuss some of the "big picture" issues that came out of testimony and from their own deliberations. She requested feedback on the response memorandums included in the meeting packet. Ms. Childs invited further questions on the amendments. She asked that the board and council confirm that two site-specific amendments would be pulled from the ordinance and considered when the two bodies addressed the designations for different sites. Ms. Childs concluded by requesting that the board and council discuss the timing of follow-up work sessions and action on the amendments. Ms. Childs briefly reviewed the process time line and reminded the two bodies that the ordinance before them addressed amendments to plan policy and text, not the designation of individual sites. Ms. Childs anticipated board and council action on the amended plan policies and text by June 30, 1998. She noted that the two bodies must adopt identical amendments for the revisions to MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 1998 Page 1 11:30 a.m. the plan to take effect. If the two bodies do not adopt the same amendments, the existing plan criteria will remain in effect. Two new plan designations had been proposed related to utility and transportation corridors; if the two bodies failed to take the same action, they would not be included in the plan. Ms. Childs reviewed the meeting packet, calling attention to the testimony notebook received by the two bodies in March and the two memorandums related to today's meeting: 1) a memorandum categorizing testimony by amendment and responding to questions posed by the elected officials following the public hearing; and 2) a City Attorney memorandum responding to a question from the council regarding its authority to act unilaterally. Ms. Childs said that staff concurred with testimony proposing that two site-specific amendments not be considered at this time, and recommended that the two amendments be pulled from the ordinance at this time. Mr. Meisner asked if there was any concept of severability for the elected officials to consider; if one body passed all the amendments while the other passed all but one, did the remainder go into effect or must the ordinances be identical? City Attorney Glenn Klein responded that there was no clear answer to Mr. Meisner's question; if the City Council adopted all the amendments and Lane County adopted all but one, he would recommend that the City Council adopt another ordinance that included all the amendments adopted by the County. Ms. Nathanson distributed tables she had prepared in anticipation of the discussion. The tables demonstrated the application of the criteria. Ms. Nathanson said that a question had been asked after the hearing as to whether the amendments maintained the balance in the plan or changed the balance; staff had indicated the amendments were intended to bring clarity and certainty to the community regarding wetlands. Ms. Nathanson noted that the staff report stated that nearly all the proposed changes favored the development designation as compared to the current plan. Ms. Nathanson reviewed the tables she had prepared and discussed how the criteria would be applied. She said that the issue before the elected officials was not the number of criteria applied but rather how they were applied. She said that as she reviewed the criteria, she realized that each set-Protect or Develop--had one criteria that, if met, would automatically lead to protection or development. Ms. Nathanson said that if a site had high values for one of the criteria and only no or Iow values listed under development, than the site was protected. She said that if there were moderate or high values for development, than staff would have to apply some judgment and could not automatically protect the site. Ms. Nathanson said that there was still considerable balancing occurring. She believed that the plan retained its initial balance between protection and development. Ms. Nathanson said that the Army Corps of Engineers' (ACOE) letter indicated to her the importance of maintaining the integrity of the plan, which was not just a compact between Eugene and Lane County but also with State and federal agencies. She did not want to amend the plan to the degree that the AC©E would reject it, and the community lose the benefit of all the work that had been done. Ms. Nathanson endorsed the recommendations of the Lane County and Eugene planning commissions as reasonable and said that they maintained a balance between protection and development. She noted that some had called on the elected officials to keep the plan, but MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 1998 Page 2 11:30 a.m. believed that they had been confused by the modifications proposed by Mr. Cornacchia and that those offering testimony to that effect had been supportive of the amendments recommended by the commissions. Ms. Taylor asked about the effect of removing the site-specific amendments as proposed by staff. Ms. Childs said that all the site-specific amendments would be considered at the same time. She also said that those wishing to develop on those sites prior to adoption of site-specific amendments would have to go through the AC©E's 404 permitting process, noting that approach was available to any property owner in the plan area. Ms. Taylor recollected that the council had previously been told it could not act on the plan independently of the board, which did not appear to be the same advice contained in the City Attorney's opinion included with the meeting packet. Mr. Klein responded that the opinion stated the City Council could not act unilaterally regarding the plan but might be able to protect wetlands within the city limits in the west Eugene area without making changes to the plan. If the City Council decided to do so, it could take action to protect wetlands within the city limits as long as that action was consistent with the policies in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. The council could not change the criteria without the concurrence of the board. Mr. Cornacchia said that he continued to be concerned about the supply of buildable lands in Eugene, and asked if it was possible for staff to project the impact of adopting the amendments on that land supply. He requested information on the number of acres of special light industrial land in Eugene prior to adoption of the plan in 1992, the number of acres available today, and the total number of acres lost because of wetlands protection. Mr. Cornacchia wanted to know how many more acres of such land would be lost if the criteria were applied to all sites in the plan area. Mr. Cornacchia said that the plan was not just a protection plan for wetlands; it had been supported by a majority of the board in 1992 because of the assurances by City and Lane Council of Governments staff of the balance in the plan. He said that if the amendments altered that balance, he wanted to know that. He pointed out that the Metropolitan Plan included policies related to business assistance, but those policies were not referenced or discussed in the wetlands plan. Referring to the letter from the ACOE, Mr. Cornacchia said that the letter should have been expected given that AC©E was not in the business of development, but rather in the business of protecting wetlands. He said that during the adoption of the original plan, it was stated that if the plan resulted in no net loss the AC©E would have to accept it. Mr. Cornacchia said that he did not think the AC©E's letter was specific about the agency's concerns and included no criteria to justify its analysis of his proposals. He said that the elected officials needed more facts. Ms. Childs said that staff could review the adopted inventories in the Industrial Lands Study and WEWP and provide a detailed breakdown by zoning category of the land affected. Mr. Cornacchia said that he wished to see the issues involved resolved without overly simplistic political wrangling, which he believed could easily occur. He said that if staff's research indicated a significant reduction in the community's opportunities to develop in a special light fashion in Eugene, perhaps there was a tradeoff to be considered; other areas of the metropolitan area, specifically Springfield, would welcome additional special light industrial land. However, that MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 1998 Page 3 11:30 a.m. might require an urban growth boundary expansion. He cited the Jasper Road area as an example of such an area. Mr. Cornacchia said that if Eugene wanted wetlands protection instead of special light industrial zoning, discussion of the creation of other opportunities for supplanting that lost inventory should be on the table. He indicated his willingness to work with the council to find an outcome that included protection for wetlands and an acknowledgment that the diversification of the economy resulting from a lessened timber harvest was important to the community. Mr. Cornacchia asked the elected officials to read his previously submitted letter carefully, asserting that there was no choice mentioned in that missive of special light industrial over wetlands, but concerns expressed about the loss of special light industrial lands that were important to a diversified economy. Ms. Swanson Gribskov favored removing the site-specific amendments from the package. She encouraged the two bodies to take separate actions on the transportation and utility corridor designations if they were unable to reach agreement on the remainder of the package. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that she had learned a great deal about the progress Eugene had made and the importance of the plan as a national model during the recent lobbying trip to Washington, DC. She said that the process was not pure science and was not a number crunching exercise, as demonstrated by Ms. Nathanson's remarks. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that the revised criteria appeared to be an improvement; she believed that they balanced interests and considered the context provided by other plans. She acknowledged Mr. Cornacchia's remarks, saying that as areas have been taken out of the developable inventory there had been no associated quid pro quo adjustment in the land supply. However, Ms. Swanson Gribskov believed that the application of the criteria was most significant, and she thought that the revised criteria spoke to the intent of the plan. Mr. Meisner agreed that the process was not pure science. He said that his hope was that the criteria provided him with guidance not solely based on politics when the elected bodies discussed the site-specific amendments. Mr. Meisner said that he had shared some of the concerns expressed by Mr. Cornacchia and had the opportunity to meet with staff to discuss them. He recollected a recent rezoning proposal request before the council; the property owner requested that 2-1/2 acres of special light industrial be rezoned to commercial for the expansion of a parking lot. Mr. Meisner said that he had asked at the time why the loss of special light industrial was significant in one area and not in another area. He asked if there were more or fewer acres lost to development if the council did not adopt the planning commissions' amendments. Mr. Meisner said that while he shared Mr. Cornacchia's concerns about the relative loss of development land, he balanced that concern against a concern about the loss of remaining wetlands. The large majority of wet prairie was gone. He pointed out that there was no way to expand the urban growth boundary to replace wetlands once lost. Mr. Meisner indicated his tentative preference was to accept the recommendations of the planning commissions and to remove the site specific amendments at this point. He expressed concern about the apparent exemptions to the regulations that Eugene Water & Electric Board appeared to be requesting in its testimony. Mr. Tollenaar observed that the amount of special light industrial buildable land was a creature of policy, unlike wetlands, which were a creature of nature. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 1998 Page 4 11:30 a.m. Mr. Sorenson said that the plan amendments represented a good opportunity for the Eugene City Council to work with the board on the public's business, particularly given the large number of issues affecting both jurisdictions. He said that if the elected officials were given additional information not included in the record, the public should be given an opportunity to respond to that information. Mr. Sorenson believed that the statement on page 7 of the staff notes was significant: "In summary, the above tables show that nearly all the proposed changes slightly favor the development designation compared to the criteria in the existing plan." He said that it was significant for those concerned about the need for balance between industrial development and wetlands protection. It appeared the planning commissions had identified improvements that protected the wetlands while slightly favoring development. Mr. Sorenson said that to put the issue in context, Governor John Kitzhaber has invited Willamette Valley citizens to a forum to discuss the future of the Willamette Basin. Issues of livability and congestion were directly related to planning efforts such as WEWP. He thought Oregonians wanted their livability and the natural environment protected. He agreed with Ms. Swanson Gribskov that the plan was a nationally significant model, and encouraged the elected officials to schedule adoption of the plan amendments soon. Mr. Green noted his support for Mr. Cornacchia's information request. Mr. Green said that the City's SPLASH curriculum educated young children about the value of water and water resources. The curriculum indicated statements about the value of protecting wetlands as well as the economic value of wetlands. Mr. Green said that the elected officials should keep the latter point in mind. Mr. Green said that everybody cares about wetlands. He thought all those present were supportive of wetlands protection. However, he thought Mr. Cornacchia was appropriately seeking some middle ground and a plan that all could support before the community in a unified fashion. He supported that approach. Mr. Green asked if the elected officials were willing to work toward that middle ground. Mr. Green said that, like Ms. Nathanson, he did not want the integrity or credibility of the plan to be jeopardized. Responding to a question from Mr. Green about the proposed date for action, Ms. Childs said that the process had gone on for some time, and there were specific undesignated sites in the plan to be resolved as well as the new proposed designations that needed to be added to the plan. Mr. Green acknowledged the importance of both future business opportunities in West Eugene and the importance of wetlands protection. He said that he was very concerned that future business opportunities not be lost. Ms. Nathanson questioned how the elected officials would redress the situation if research indicated that the supply of special light industrial or commercial land had been significantly impacted by wetlands protection. She did not think it was appropriate to address the issue of the supply of industrial land through the WEWP adoption process, which was focused on federal and State requirements for wetlands protection. Ms. Nathanson said that the elected officials should MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 1998 Page 5 11:30 a.m. first finish consideration of the plan and then consider how to address the impact of the plan on the land supply. Mr. Farr stated his belief that the City Council had been "quite unyielding" with its intergovernmental partners. He endorsed Mr. Cornacchia's request that the elected officials attempt to find a middle ground supportable by all. He agreed that everyone wanted to protect wetlands and suggested that Eugene protected wetlands better than anyone else in the nation. Mr. Farr said that true to form, Eugene wanted more and better protections, but he said that as the council moved forward it must consider what was happening elsewhere in the metropolitan area and the county and attempt to reach a compromise that was mutually satisfying to all parties. Ms. Taylor agreed with Ms. Nathanson that the issues of industrial land supply and wetlands protection were different. She asked Mr. Cornacchia to explain his remarks regarding Springfield's urban growth boundary. Mr. Cornacchia responded that he was suggesting that given that the issues of industrial land and wetlands protection were embodied in the WEWP, he did not think that they could be divided, and if the elected officials were to deal with wetlands protection they should also be prepared to deal with the industrial lands supply. If the council was to be consistent with the Growth Management Study policies related to retention of the urban growth boundary and refused to expand the urban growth boundary to make up for the loss, if any, of industrial land with the WEWP boundaries, it should be willing to discuss allowing Springfield to consider such an expansion. Ms. Taylor observed that twice in recent times the council had approved rezoning of industrial land to commercial uses, and suggested that those occasions were the appropriate time to consider the amount of industrial land. Ms. Weeldreyer also supported removing the site-specific amendments at this point. Ms. Weeldreyer agreed that WEWP was a national model, adding it represented the best thinking of the community. She acknowledged the rationale of clarifying the intent of the plan through the proposed amendments. She endorsed Mr. Cornacchia's information requests. Ms. Weeldreyer advocated for intergovernmental cooperation as the elected officials sought to balance differing interests and expressions of livability voiced by various residents and communities within Lane County. She said that jurisdictions should not impose their values upon each other as had occurred in the past. Ms. Weeldreyer said that the elected officials should have flexibility and respect for the way other communities chose to develop and accommodate the growth levels projected for the Willamette Valley while protecting the wet prairie habitat. Mr. Meisner asked that the staff analysis of the industrial lands inventory include the redesignation of commercial or residential lands to mixed use, which included the possibility of light industrial. Mr. Meisner said that he understood that the existence of the plan had provided for greater development certainty because developers were aware of their lands' status. Ms. Childs concurred. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 1998 Page 6 11:30 a.m. Mr. Meisner expressed concern about the no-growth attitude expressed in testimony received by the elected officials, particularly by recent residents. He found it troubling that such individuals wanted no more growth now that they had arrived. Ms. Dumdi echoed Mr. Cornacchia's concerns regarding balance in the plan. She said that she wanted to see a win-win situation and was committed to working toward that goal. She concurred with the staff recommendation regarding the two site-specific amendments. Mr. Laue said that the WEWP was a national model because it did what it was supposed to do. It was established to deal with an unanticipated circumstance; the City had targeted its infrastructure investments in west Eugene to preserve farmlands north of the community, only to face the ramifications of the Clean Water Act. The plan was the result. The amendments and criteria were designed to protect the wetlands with the greatest value while allowing development to go forward in appropriate ways. Mr. Laue said that the elected officials should consider what was occurring in the way of industrial development in the community. He pointed out that the industrial development in the Chad Drive area had occurred on large parcels and only two or three were filled. The type of development was not typically industrial. Mr. Laue said that the community could continue to support light industrial development through its mixed use zones, and could redevelop old industrial sites. He was reluctant, and believed it inadvisable, to get into a discussion of urban growth boundary expansion at the same time as the WEWP was being considered. Mr. Laue favored proceeding with consideration of the transportation and utility corridor designations, and supported the staff recommendation related to the two site-specific amendments. Mr. Green said that when he spoke of reaching middle ground, his focus was on making the plan better, not to weaken its protections. Ms. Weeldreyer noted the importance she placed on the transportation and utility corridor designations, and the need to process those designations in a timely manner. Mr. Cornacchia asked if the designations related to the transportation and utility corridors could be separated from the remainder of the amendments package. He said that the transportation corridor designation was holding up West 18th road improvements. Mr. Klein said yes. Mr. Cornacchia advocated for an early resolution of those designations in a separate forum, and asked staff to schedule those discussions. Ms. Childs noted that a second public hearing would be needed to apply those designations to sites. Mr. Lee indicated he was looking forward to the remainder of the process. He commended the materials presentation. Ms. Nathanson referred to Exhibit A, Policy Amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan, and suggested that the sentence in Section 3.17 that read "Sites which have very strong values for protection criteria 1, 6, 7, or 8, or which have moderate values for 5 or more protection criteria and Iow or no values..." be replaced with the following text: "Sites which have Iow or no values for development criteria, and either strong values for...or moderate values for..." Ms. Childs MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 1998 Page 7 11:30 a.m. said that staff would include the change in the next package for consideration by the elected officials. Mr. Torrey agreed with Mr. Cornacchia that the elected officials needed to know the impact of the plan on future development, particularly on large sized parcels. He suggested that the strength of the plan lay in the dialogue created between parties. Mr. Torrey pointed out that the Bureau of Land Management, as a partner to the WEWP, had purchased more than 1,300 acres of land but would not get more federal funding if the two jurisdictions were not able to reach agreement on the plan amendments. Mr. Torrey supported the staff recommendation related to the site-specific designations, and endorsed Mr. Cornacchia's remarks regarding the need to proceed with the transportation and utility corridors. He asked the council and board for concurrence. The council and board concurred that they supported postponement of the site-specific designations and early consideration of the transportation and utility corridor designations. Responding to a question from Ms. Childs, Mr. Cornacchia said that he would be satisfied with the 1992 industrial lands inventory, adjusted for changes made by the council. Mr. Meisner asked staff to consider where rezoning to mixed use had added to the industrial lands inventory, particularly on a large scale. Ms. Childs noted that the majority of properties designated for mixed use added to the inventory were already developed. Mr. Meisner acknowledged that fact, but said he thought it was important to demonstrate where the City had added to the inventory as well as deleted lands from it. Ms. Childs said that she would work to schedule follow-up individual work sessions for the council and board in May and June. The meeting adjourned at 1:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James D. Johnson City Manager Pro Tem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 1998 Page 8 11:30 a.m.