Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Public Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue April 12, 2004 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Charles Rusch, President; John Lawless, Vice President; Mitzi Colbath, Rick Duncan, Adell McMillan, Jon Belcher, Anne Marie Levis, members; Susan Muir, Allen Lowe, Neil Bjorklund, Beth Bridges, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department; .Christine Thompson, Jan Oliver, Chris Ramey, University of Oregon; Jeff Nelson, Kris- tin Taylor, Fairmount Neighborhood Association. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS DISCUSSION/DEBRIEF: EAST CAMPUS PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS STATUS REPORT: GOAL 5 OTHER ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Subcommittee Reports B. Other Items from Commission and Staff SUMMARY MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 1  MINUTES Regular Public Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue April 12, 2004 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Charles Rusch, President; John Lawless, Vice President; Mitzi Colbath, Rick Duncan, Adell McMillan, Jon Belcher, Anne Marie Levis, members; Susan Muir, Allen Lowe, Neil Bjorklund, Beth Bridges, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department; .Christine Thompson, Jan Oliver, Chris Ramey, University of Oregon; Jeff Nelson, Kris- tin Taylor, Fairmount Neighborhood Association. Mr. Rusch called the meeting to order. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Debbie Jeffries, 3800 N. Delta Highway, Eugene, spoke to the Natural Resource Study. She said that her property was within the urban growth boundary (UGB) but not within the City. She illustrated the location of a pond on the map and noted that while the pond was not within the City’s jurisdiction, a section that appeared to feed the pond was. She said that the area in question was a ditch without a constant water flow year round and the pond had been previously documented as a farm pond, which should not be included in the inventory. She said that the Safe Harbor approach was being promoted for the urban transition area still under the County jurisdiction. She had been unable to obtain a list of sites that would be included in the transition area. She expressed concern that stormwater ditches would be included as riparian corridors. Lauri Segel, 120 W. Broadway, Eugene, spoke on behalf of 1000 Friends of Oregon. She said that in a review of the record, she noted a difference between the significance criteria approved by the City Council and the criteria recommended by the Planning Commission. She said the difference was that instead of riparian corridors and upland wildlife habitat sites being protected under a standard methodol- ogy, the riparian corridor sites and upland wildlife stream corridors would be protected under a standard methodology. She stated that an agenda item summary for the July 21, 2003 council meeting mischarac- terized the Planning Commission’s recommendation and hoped that a correction would be made if warranted. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Ms. Muir said that the issue raised by Ms. Segel would be addressed during the status report on Goal 5 later in the meeting. Mr. Lawless left the table at this time. DISCUSSION/DEBRIEF: EAST CAMPUS PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS Ms. Muir introduced Beth Bridges, Neighborhood Services manager, who facilitated the discussion. Ms. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 1 Bridges asked the representatives from the group that participated in the process to introduce themselves. Mr. Lowe reported that the City Council had adopted the package of refinement plan amendments and code amendments and allocated $35,000 for the traffic studies requested through the public involvement process. He said that the most difficult issue to resolve was limitations on conditional use permits (CUP) such as how they would be processed, where they would be allowed, and how much area would be involved in a conditional use. He said that a last minute resolution was reach with an agreement to limit conditional uses to 35,000 square feet in a specific area. Ms. Bridges asked participants to rate the process, using a scale of zero to ten, for effectiveness of the process as determined by the actual outcome, the process itself, and nature of relationships among the group, and would the participants go through the process again. The consensus was that the process was effective and participants would consider using it again. Ms. Bridges listed survey responses from those involved in the process and asked the group to provide any additional feedback they had. What Work Well survey responses • All parties were willing to use a different process; it was easier to resolve issues outside of the formal process • Participants were responsive to the process proposed. • The process gave people sufficient time to explain their positions. • All perspectives were represented; parties were knowledgeable and able to speak for their constitu- ents. • There was a clear schedule with deadlines to encourage progress and focus. • Areas of agreement were acknowledged at the beginning of the process. • City staff devoted considerable time and worked creatively within the process. • The City clearly described its planning process and how planning documents worked as necessary to clarify options and resolve issues. • The final decision was thoughtful and not subject to last minute or politicized deals. • Testimony at public hearings was coordinated and not repetitious. • The method staff used to present information to the Planning Commission was excellent. • Follow-up among stakeholders between meetings aided communication and problem-solving. Ms. Bridges said her sense from the comments was that while the process was time-consuming, it ultimately involved less effort than would have been spent in a typical land use application process. She asked participants if that was an accurate perception. Mr. Lowe and Mr. Nystrom said that the process was very labor-intensive, particularly behind the scenes for staff, and it consumed significantly more time than the standard application process. Ms. Thompson said that she felt the process focused the discussions and coordinated the give-and-take of information between the City and the neighborhood. She felt the resolution process was efficient and substantially reduced the likelihood of an appeal. Ms. Oliver observed that the City was unable to participate in the process at the beginning and some of the initial chaos could have been averted if the City was engaged sooner. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 2 Ms. Taylor said that the University and the neighborhood had worked together for some time before submittal of the application and narrowed the issues to a few. She said the City was also a stakeholder and an earlier involvement would have benefited the process. Mr. Nelson said there were several issues the neighborhood dropped in the interests of focusing on the overall goal. Ms. Bridges asked for responses to a quote from one of the surveys: “The conditions that made mediation right for the East Campus process are rarely evident in other land use applications.” Ms. Taylor said that from the neighborhood’s perspective it was critical that at least a couple of people had to be willing to dedicate themselves to the process and earn the support of the neighborhood association. She said that the association had delegated authority to her and Mr. Nelson as its representa- tives and their decisions during the process would then be confirmed by the association or association board. Ms. Oliver agreed that the neighborhood association’s willingness to delegate decision-making authority to its representatives on the negotiation committee was key to a successful process. Mr. Ramey commented that the University had treated its neighbors as neighbors and invited their input rather than simply moving forward with an application. All participants agreed that the process was very intense and involved an extraordinary amount of time. Ms. Bridges summarized that some of the features rarely evident in other application processes were the people involved and the willingness of the University to engage in an alternative process and the willingness of the neighborhood association to participate. Ms. Thompson added that all those involved were much better educated on the issues as a result of the process. What Needs Improvement survey responses • Clarify that the City was not a neutral third party and had its own interests; the City was an interested party and not a mediator. • Consistent City staff representation earlier in the process as a stakeholder would have been helpful • Clarify the significant confusion about the University’s and the City’s policies and processes. • The City should clarify when it was appropriate to communicate with the Planning Commission and City Council, such as at a work session. Stakeholders should be permitted to correct misinformation. • Suggest to stakeholders that they continuously monitor the process and have a way to acknowledge mistakes and misunderstandings. • Identification of issues and working through language revisions during group meetings was very time intensive; perhaps work outside of the meeting would have been helpful. • It should not be the planner’s role to assist the neighborhood organizations to get organized; the City should be more proactive through Neighborhood Services in encouraging and facilitating communi- cation for associations that have expressed concern about an application process. • Inadequate time for the City to coordinate internally. Ms. Oliver said the City’s presence to address what was permitted or possible was missed at the early stages of the process. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 3 Mr. Nystrom said that it was difficult for City staff to be negative about a concept that the other stakeholders supported and the role of staff was sometimes confusing to others at the table. He said that the process allowed little time for staff to coordinate with other staff internally and consult on what the City’s position should be, particularly when decisions were made at the table. He said that would require more resources than the City had. Ms. Taylor suggested that a hybridized process could be used in a limited consultation with developers prior to submission of a complicated application in order to involve and inform all stakeholders. Mr. Nelson said that City staff did a good job with the tasks they were presented, but it might complicate the process to have other City staff involved in the communication process. Mr. Lowe agreed that his role could have been complicated by having another staff member involved in the communication. He said that the process worked in part because it was driven by a constrained timeline that required the participants to make decisions and choices without “nitpicking” issues. Ms. Taylor said that at times Mr. Lowe did function as a mediator and it was a big expectation to also ask staff to function as a stakeholder and represent intentions of various bodies during work sessions with the commission or council. She said that a work session that allowed stakeholders in the audience to participate would relieve staff of the responsibility of trying to represent all of the various stakeholder perspectives. Ms. Bridges summarized that the two items most frequently mentioned items that would improve the process were clarification of the City’s role as a stakeholder with its own interests and clarification of when stakeholders were permitted to communicate with the Planning Commission and the City Council, such as in a work session, in order to correct misinformation. Ms. McMillan remarked that when the Whiteaker neighborhood plan was developed several years ago the chair of the neighborhood association sat at the table with the Planning Commission for almost a year in order to respond on behalf of the stakeholders. She said a similar arrangement was used with the chair of the citizen advisory committee during the Code update. Mr. Ramey added that the University had sat at the table with the commission during the Autzen Stadium project. Mr. Rusch thanked the participants and said it was important to find procedures for settling issues that was less legalistic than public hearings. He expressed the hope that there was a way to take what was learned and develop a more appealing process. Commission members thanked the participants for their efforts and willingness to share their experiences. Mr. Lawless returned to the table at this time. STATUS REPORT: GOAL 5 Mr. Bjorklund responded to concerns raised at the start of the meeting by Lauri Segel that there was a discrepancy in the record regarding the commission’s recommendations on significance criteria for riparian and upland wildlife habitat sites. He said the July 21, 2003, memorandum clarified the direction to staff from the council to bring back two ordinances and apply the Safe Harbor process to the upland MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 4 wildlife habitat sites that were not stream corridors. He said there could be room for misinterpretation if the July 21, 2003, memorandum was the first communication to the council related to the Planning Commission’s recommendation; however, the council was given the commission’s recommendation verbatim in the form of an ordinance in May 2003 and had numerous discussions about that recommenda- tion prior to the July 21 memorandum. He said the council was clear about the commission’s recommen- dation and the July memorandum was to clarify what the council had indicated it wanted in terms of significance criteria applied to certain sites and the Safe Harbor criteria applied to other sites. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath, Mr. Bjorklund said he would not reword the memorandum because the criteria carried forward from the commission were unchanged; what they applied to changed. Mr. Belcher said that Ms. Segel’s concern appeared to relate not to the council’s understanding, but to future interpretations of the record. Mr. Bjorklund said the ordinance had been passed by the council and was final, it had been reviewed and acknowledged by the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) through legal challenges to the ordinance and appeals had been exhausted. He said the inventory within the City limits was final. Ms. Muir added that the wording in a staff memorandum did not create legislative history for implementing an ordinance. Mr. Belcher asked that the minutes reflect that there was some concern about how the recommendation went forward. Ms. Colbath asked for clarification on whether the commission’s recommendation was on the criteria only or also the application of the criteria. Mr. Bjorklund said the commission’s recommendation was on both aspects and it was given to the council verbatim several months before the July 21, 2003 memoran- dum and was reflected in the record. He pointed out that the concern was about one sentence in a body of information that contained thousands of pages and many months of memoranda, references, and minutes and this larger record would provide the context and clarify the intent. Mr. Bjorklund provided an update on five areas of the Goal 5 process. He said the process by which the City’s adopted inventory of riparian and upland habitat sites had been challenged, was reviewed and acknowledged by DLCD and LCDC and was now concluded. He said no appeal had been filed at the Court of Appeals level following LCDC’s action and the decision was therefore final. Mr. Bjorklund said the City was continuing to move through the adoption process for the urbanizable area between the City limits and the UGB and illustrated those areas on a map. He said that the City had planning jurisdiction in those areas through an agreement with Lane County. He used a map to demonstrate the adopted inventory of riparian sites and the upland wildlife habitat sites with the stream corridors and the draft local wetland inventory sites. He indicated that waterways passed in and out of the City limits and there was potential that the County might not approve the inventory that the council had approved, resulting in discontiguous pieces of waterways in that area. He said the County Board of Commissioners had discussed the issue and would be considering it on April 14, 2004. He said that process was affecting the City’s ability to move forward with Environment, Social, Economic and Energy (ESEE) analyses of sites outside the City limits until the matter of the inventory was resolved. He said if the outcome was ultimately that Safe Harbor criteria were applied to the waterways, most of them would drop off the inventory and a few would be added because the Safe Harbor criteria stated that if it was a water body that had fish in it, it went on the inventory. He said those waterways that had not been documented as fish-bearing waterways would be removed. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 5 Mr. Bjorklund reported that public notices were sent to all affected property owners outside the City limits and inside the UGB and out of approximately 800 affected properties, testimony was received from five. He pointed out the location of local wetlands on the draft local wetland inventory. He said some of the wetlands were mapped offsite because owners did not give permission to go on their properties. He indicated that the local wetland inventory process is specified in greater detail in the rules than for riparian and upland inventories. He said the criteria defining a significant wetland was clearly stated in State law and allowed no latitude at the local level to develop significance criteria. He said in the draft report approximately 80 percent of the wetlands were significant, but could change during review of the report. He said the Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL) would approve the inventory as a local wetland inventory consistent with the rules, and then the inventory would be returned to the local jurisdiction to be reviewed and adopted as part of the Goal 5 inventory. He said he hoped the DSL approval would be completed in May 2004. Ms. Colbath asked if the City required approval from the County on the inventory, even though the City had planning jurisdiction in the urbanizable area. Mr. Bjorklund said that County approval was required because the County retained policy authority which was shared with the City and both jurisdictions had to adopt what applied in the urbanizable area. Mr. Duncan asked if a property owner where no onsite survey was done could contest a wetlands designation. Mr. Bjorklund said the DSL would notify property owners when it approved the inventory and additionally the City had provided notice to owners and an opportunity to review maps last fall. He said that once DSL approved the inventory, a private property owner was allowed to hire a consultant and submit a detailed site report, which would take precedence over the inventory; however, if the site was on the Goal 5 inventory it would also need to go before the council in order to be removed. He said the inventory was for planning purposes and did not contain the detailed information required for wetland permitting. Ms. McMillan asked if the outcome of the process would be a plan similar to that developed during the West Eugene wetlands process. Mr. Bjorklund said the local wetland inventory would be included in a “mega-package” that would come before the commission and contain an ESEE analysis for riparian, upland, and wetland sites; recommendations for all those sites; and ordinances for new protection measures, if applicable. He said that June 2005 was the target date for completing work on the package. Mr. Bjorklund said the City was working to ensure that the background data used in the ESEE process was as accurate as possible. He said new aerial photos had recently been acquired that were extremely accurate digital photos that were rectified to the GIS system and would provide major assistance in the inventory work. He stated that Public Works was engaged in a border-to-border review of stream alignments and making corrections. Ms. Colbath asked if the West Eugene wetlands would be incorporated in the process or remain a separate plan. Mr. Bjorklund responded that the West Eugene process resulted in a wetlands conservation plan that under the State rules and statutes was considered to have completed Goal 5 requirements. Mr. Bjorklund stated that the ESEE process would look at the economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences of protecting, partially protecting, or not protecting each of the resource sites and would look at an impact area surrounding a site. He said the analysis would be focused on the Goal 5 site level, not at the property owner site level, but would be balanced with a compilation of information for each affected tax lot. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 6 Mr. Bjorklund explained that staff had spent two years looking at listing of Upper Willamette Spring Chinook in the Willamette River system under the Endangered Species Act. He said the fish was listed as a threatened species effective in 2001. He said that local jurisdiction could be held liable for failing to regulate an activity that could cause harm to salmon. He said that staff developed a set of ten strategies; nine were internal strategies affecting the City’s actions with respect to its own land and facilities and the tenth was a regulatory strategy. He said the regulatory strategy was reviewed and recommended by the Environmental Policy Team and the strategy was to establish some type of setback regulations affecting a 120-foot area on each side of the Willamette River that would be regulated to minimize impacts on habitat features important to salmon. He said if the City proceeded with regulations, they would have to go through the Goal 5 process and be rolled into the overall Goal 5 process already in progress. He said that a series of informational workshops beginning on April 27, 2004, would be held in neighborhoods close to the affected areas and feedback would be provided to the commission and the council. Mr. Duncan asked if the strategies would affect the planned Delta Ponds improvements. Mr. Bjorklund said that regulations would not limit ecological restoration projects. Mr. Bjorklund pointed out the property and waterway that Ms. Jefferies spoke to at the beginning to the meeting. He said the waterway at its southern end was ditch-like but as it moved north there was a healthy riparian corridor. He said the City was looking at site E76 as a possible starting point for the ESEE analysis and most of the pond and riparian corridor as a site and would analyze ESEE conse- quences for the site as a whole in addition to looking at each of the affected tax lots. He said part of the site was inside the City limits and part was outside, therefore most of the site could be decided by the City Council and the remaining portions would need to be co-adopted by the County Board of Commissioners and the council. He indicated that a property owner could submit information at public hearings at the Planning Commission and City Council levels. He stated that once adopted by the council, an owner could file an objection with DLCD and once DLCD had issued an order, the order could be appealed to LCDC and the Court of Appeals. Mr. Bjorklund reviewed the notification process, which consisted of direct mail notice to all affected property owners and the interested parties list before all hearings. Ms. Muir commented that although the target date for completion of the Goal 5 process was June 2005, the City was actually far behind the schedule established for periodic review work tasks. Ms. Colbath asked if there was a map that showed the impact areas for ESEE analysis and whether zoning of a resource site could change if the ESEE analysis identified a conflicting use. Mr. Bjorklund responded that the map would reflect impact areas that were different from resource areas. He said that if a site was designated for protection and there was a conflicting use under the current zoning, it would have to be rezoned. Ms. Colbath asked how issues of conflicting criteria for corridors that were both inside and outside the UGB would be addressed. Mr. Bjorklund replied that if there was a difference between criteria adopted by the County and the City the issue might need to be presented to the Metropolitan Planning Commis- sion for resolution. In response to a question from Mr. Duncan, Mr. Bjorklund stated that the protection measures would be included in the package presented to the commission. OTHER ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 7 A. Other Items from the Commission and Staff Ms. Colbath mentioned that Eugene was again featured in Planning Magazine. Ms. Muir noted the new process for distributing meeting packets. Mr. Belcher distributed a copy of a public meeting notice from the County as a good example of public outreach materials. Ms. McMillan announced that a meeting to discuss affordable housing and historic preservation was being hosted by the Historic Review Board at noon on April 22, 2004. She invited members to attend. Mr. Rusch adjourned the meeting at 1:30 p.m. (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) m:\2004\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc040412.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 8