Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue May 2, 2005 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath Vice President; Jon Belcher, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, Anne Marie Levis, members; Susan Muir, Mike Sullivan, Neil Björklund, Gabe Flock, Ann Siegen- thaler, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department staff; Gary McNeel, Pub- lic Works Department staff; Emily Jerome, City Attorney’s Office; Marguerite Nabeta, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development; Mike McDonald, Kevin Matthews, Lauri Segel, Debbie Jeffries, Terry Connolly, Jim Spickerman, Lincoln Scof- field, Paul Conte, Charles Biggs, Steve Pethick, Diane Wiley, Dick Briggs, Jan Wostman, guests. ABSENT: John Lawless, Rick Duncan, Tom Coyle. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Hledik moved to approve the January 1, February 14, and February 28, 2005 minutes as amended, and the Febru- ary 1 and March 28, 2005 minutes as written. The motion passed 4:0:1, with Ms. Levis abstaining. II. WORK SESSION: GOAL 5 NATURAL RESOURCES III. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF SUMMARY MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 2, 2005 Page 1 Regular Meeting  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue May 2, 2005 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath Vice President; Jon Belcher, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, Anne Marie Levis, members; Susan Muir, Mike Sullivan, Neil Björklund, Gabe Flock, Ann Siegen- thaler, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department staff; Gary McNeel, Pub- lic Works Department staff; Emily Jerome, City Attorney’s Office; Marguerite Nabeta, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development; Mike McDonald, Kevin Matthews, Lauri Segel, Debbie Jeffries, Terry Connolly, Jim Spickerman, Lincoln Scof- field, Paul Conte, Charles Biggs, Steve Pethick, Diane Wiley, Dick Briggs, Jan Wostman, guests. ABSENT: John Lawless, Rick Duncan, Tom Coyle. Ms. Colbath convened the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Ms. Colbath explained the process for public comment and asked speakers to limit their statements to three minutes each. Steve Pethick, 987 Almaden Street, Eugene, said he and his wife had been involved with other neighbors, known as the Chambers Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods (CAFHN) on the Chambers Node Reconsidered (CNR) project since last fall. He expressed his appreciation for the work that Allen Lowe and the consultant had done to develop a design standard that would protect the concept of a compact, pedestrian friendly neighborhood. Mr. Pethick said over 30 families in the neighborhood had participated in the CAFHN activities. In March, a CAFHN member who was a local architect, offered a residential focus group for CAFHN to educate them about setbacks, slopes, building mass, and other standards that were important for the neighborhood. Additionally, neighbors walked the R-2 area many times, looked at lot details and developments, and reviewed tax lot maps. CAFHN alerted the CNR project team of several errors in the data provided by the City. CAFHN provided an opportunity for neighbors to learn about the issues and to have a real say in what the alternative proposals were. He said without the extra efforts outside of the official public process, the public meetings alone would not have been enough. Citing the March 14, 2005 Design Review Meeting, two hours allotted were not sufficient for a 50 slide PowerPoint presenta- tion, as well as to provide time for all who wished to ask questions or provide feedback. He said many neighbors were concerned that the proposed standards did not adequately protect against overgrowth of the neighborhood. Mr. Pethick expressed hope that the Planning Commission would encourage the project team to have the appropriate regard for CAHFN’s work and concerns. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 2, 2005 Page 1 Regular Meeting Paul Conte, 1461 Conte, 1461 West 10th Avenue, Eugene, identified himself as a member of the CAFHN steering committee. He distributed written copies of his testimony to the Planning Commission. Mr. Conte commended Allan Lowe and the consultant for their work to fulfill the goals of the CNR project, including the development of infill standards to protect the neighborhood’s character and stability. The neighbors appreciated the CNR project team’s valiant efforts. Mr. Conte said it was clear to the neighbors that the staff and consultant resources required for the project were underestimated by a wide margin, resulting in presentation of incomplete standards that had not been thoroughly checked, at both the March focus group and the April public design review meeting. The deficiencies were serious enough that 14 of the 17 focus group participants and 18 of 20 people who attended a public design review meeting signed letters addressed to the project team saying that the proposed standards were not satisfactory. Signers of the letters included two architects and two focus group participants designated by the Jefferson Westside Neighbors. Mr. Conte said participants were told at the final public meeting that there was no more money for consultant time. Since that date, there had been little cooperation with the residents from the team. A major problem was that a crucial standard for building height and mass had never been presented in a complete or workable form. He said the materials presented to the Planning Commission provided examples of the unresolved issues. Residents were now being asked to have faith that the CNR project would go forward. Additionally, residents were told that if they did not like the final product they could use their three minute statements at the Planning Commission’s public hearing to suggest alternatives. He said a public hearing was not an effective way to participate in defining the foundation of the critical standards. Mr. Conte said he appreciated the dilemma the project director found himself in, but closing the door at this point on residents who had a significant investment in the process was not a wise way to compensate for not having planned adequate resources to complete the job. He added the residents were willing to continue to help by doing most of the ground level research, correcting the City’s lot data, and producing concrete quantitative and qualitative descriptions of the neighborhood as a basis for sensible standards. The neighbors had spent many hours of working through the technical details of building height and mass standards appropriate to the neighborhood’s architecture and scale. The neighbors proposed a simple, effective and well tested solution for which there was broad public understanding and support. The right step was for the project team and CAFHN representatives to spend several hours working out a good solution together. CAFHN was ready to contribute to any effective approach. He said both Mayor Piercy and City Councilor Bonnie Bettman had offered their help, and City Manager Dennis Taylor told the mayor he would have staff follow-up with the mayor to keep the project on track. Debbie Jeffries, 3800 North Delta Highway, Eugene, offered comments on the Goal 5 draft ordinance. Ms. Jeffries had copies of the draft ordinance that she had received in the mail from staff, as well as a copy from the City’s webpage, and the text did not match. She said there had been no opportunity at any of the work sessions regarding the stream corridors categories. She said there was nothing in the materials about the definitions or the criteria that were to be met in the various categories, A through E. That was important because there was no way to debate or argue into which category a site would be assigned since there was nothing in the draft that indicated what the categories were. Additionally, there was no participation in deciding that it was important to have 60 foot setbacks versus a 20 foot setbacks on either side. In some of the cases in the south hills, narrow ditches of 15 to 10 feet in width were designated to have 60 foot setbacks on either side. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 2, 2005 Page 2 Regular Meeting Ms. Jerome arrived at 11:45 a.m. Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, Eugene, addressed Goal 5. He said he had seen the Goal 5 presenta- tion at the April 28, 2005 Neighborhood Leaders Council (NLC), that raised some questions. He said the statewide planning goal required local governments to protect significant riparian corridors, wildlife habitat, and wetlands, but contained no language that required all of them to include a water component. Mr. Biggs was concerned about the amount of authority the city manager was given inasmuch as the current city manager was not a wildlife biologist. He was also concerned about setbacks. Mr. Biggs stated that Mr. Björklund had said that scientific evidence stated that there should be a 120 foot setback along the river to protect endangered salmon based upon vegetation height along the corridor. Thus, Mr. Biggs was concerned with 40 foot setbacks. He suggested some of the flexibility in the plan related to continuous vegetation should be reviewed by an unbiased biologist or by a consensus group composed of city planning officials, a developer, and neighborhood representation. Mr. Biggs stated that it was not clear to him where Gillespie Butte would be preserved as a natural resource. He had concerns about what was and what was not on the list based on the criteria. Kevin Matthews, P.O. Box 1588, Eugene, spoke on behalf of himself, as President of Friends of Eugene, and President of Southeast Neighbors. He agreed with Ms. Jeffries that there had not been public input in the plan. This was distressing considering that thousands of hours of citizen involvement in the Goal 5 process, and the history of citizen interest and concern. Mr. Matthews said he had raised questions at a previous Planning Commission meeting regarding the safe harbor significance findings. He understood there had not been written findings available to the public or the Planning Commission on the safe harbor process. He said the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) required looking at state listed sensitive species, including the pileated woodpecker, in addition to the federal and state threatened and endangered species. Mr. Matthews said the second safe harbor criteria defined map documentation as any available maps prepared by wildlife professionals. He said the Goal 5 record included maps that documented the presence of pileated woodpeckers throughout the south hills for decades. He said the Planning Commis- sion needed findings to explain how the non-significance decision was made. Referring to page 45, Mr. Matthews talked about setbacks and stream protection, noting that the public needed more time for input. Ms. Colbath closed the public comment period. In response to Ms. Colbath’s request for questions from Planning Commissioners, Mr. Belcher said he had Goal 5 questions that he would hold until the Goal 5 discussion. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – January 24, February 1, 14, 28, and March 28, 2005 Ms. Colbath said the words ”Vice President” should be deleted from the attendance paragraph in both the Summary Minutes and the Minutes of the January 24, 2005 meeting. Mr. Belcher said “Mr. Hansen” should read “Ms. Hansen” on page 6, paragraph 6, of the January 24, 2005 minutes. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 2, 2005 Page 3 Regular Meeting Mr. Belcher said page 8, paragraph 6, of the January 24, 2005 minutes should read: “Mr. Belcher said there was a project included in the plan that he had been involved with since 1990, and he said he would not participate in the Planning Commission discussions.” There were no corrections to the February 1, 2005 minutes. Mr. Belcher said the last sentence in paragraph 2, page 3, of the February 14, 2005 minutes should read: “He cited public right-of-way signage as an example.” Mr. Hledik said the first sentence in paragraph 9, page 3, of the February 14, 2005 minutes should read: ”In response to a question from Mr. Hledik regarding dedication of public ways, Mr. Nystrom said the code was not complete in that it did not identify other public right-of-way categories that were captured in other documents.” Ms. Colbath said it should be noted in the attendance section on page 1 of the February 14, 2005 minutes that Ms. Colbath was Vice President and Mr. Lawless was President. Ms. Colbath said Tim Seabury should be changed to Jim Seabury in the guests listed on the February 28, 2005 minutes. Mr. Hledik said the first sentence of paragraph 6, page 2, of the February 28, 2005 minutes should read: “Mr. Hledik noted Policy 15 had been crafted when circumstances were different, with separate fire and water districts, and the cities were logical providers of those services.” Ms. Colbath said paragraph 9, page 4, of the February 28, 2005 minutes should read: “Ms. Colbath reiterated the Planning Commission’s contention that the proposed amendment was a land use issue only. The Planning Commission neither supported nor opposed creation of a taxing district.” Ms. Colbath said paragraph 3, page 6, of the February 28, minutes should read: ”Ms. Colbath reported the that she would share a book brought back from Washington, D.C. by the United Front lobbying group. There were no corrections to the March 28, 2005 minutes. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved to approve the January 1, February 14, and February 28, 2005 minutes as amended, and the Febru- ary 1 and March 28, 2005 minutes as written. The motion passed 4:0:1, with Ms. Levis abstaining. Ms. Colbath asked those who spoke during the public comment period to submit additional comments in writing or through e-mail. II. WORK SESSION: GOAL 5 NATURAL RESOURCES Ms. Muir said she would serve as the Acting in Capacity (AIC) Planning and Development Director effective May 3, 2005, as Tom Coyle had left the City to accept a position in Kansas City. She added that Steve Nystrom would serve as AIC Planning Division Manager, and Community Development Division MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 2, 2005 Page 4 Regular Meeting Manager Mike Sullivan would serve as the ex officio member of the Planning Commission. Ms. Muir introduced Marguerite Nabeta, the City of Eugene’s representative from the Department of Land Conservation and Development (LCDC), who served as a liaison with the State of Oregon. She added that Ms. Nabeta would work with staff throughout the Goal 5 process. Ms. Colbath introduced City Attorney Emily Jerome. Staff distributed duplicate copies of the mailed agenda packets due to a quality control issue with the printing. Mr. Björklund introduced Associate Planner Ann Siegenthaler, who played a major roll in the Goal 5 work. Mr. Björklund provided a brief overview of the Goal 5 process. He said the term water resources was referred to frequently in the materials. He explained that the term was used in part because the non- stream corridor areas in the south hills were removed from the inventory in the City Council adoption process in 2003. He added what remained in the inventory was a system of water resources, so that every site had some water resource in the form of a stream, river, or wetland within it. Thus, all of the sites that were under consideration contained water resources. Mr. Björklund said a frequent question from property owners and other interested parties was: ”Inside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), isn’t all the land supposed to be developed with urban uses?” The answer he said was yes and no. One of the key portions of the statewide goals that was not frequently discussed was the urbanization goal (Goal 14) regarding urban growth boundaries (UGB). One of the underlying principles was maintaining the carrying capacity of natural systems inside the UGB. He encouraged the Planning Commission to think of the process as being a balancing of urban uses and natural uses as it worked through the recommendations, the aim of which was to preserve the carrying capacity of the natural systems inside the UGBs. Mr. Björklund offered a PowerPoint presentation entitled, Eugene Goal 5 Natural Resources Conserva- tion Project, Conserving Our Water Resources. Mr. Björklund referred to two maps that were posted on the wall entitled, Proposed Corrections to Eugene Goal 5 Riparian and Upland Wildlife Habitat Inventories (April 17, 2005) and Draft Recommen- dations for the Eugene Goal 5 Wetland, Riparian and Upland Wildlife Habitat Inventories (April 17, 2005) throughout his presentation. Mr. Björklund said the ordinance in the agenda packet was all inclusive, and it would adopt the code language that implemented the recommended protection measures. He added that the packet also included a legislative zone change proposal that would apply the new measures to the tax lots that were recommended for protection. Mr. Björklund said there were two ordinances, one of which applied inside the city limits, and the other of which applied outside the city limits to the UGB. He said the key element was that the rezoning process outside the city limits was under the authority of Lane County. He added that the City Council would adopt an ordinance that would identify a list of tax lots in the urban transition area, that would receive the protection measure upon annexation. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 2, 2005 Page 5 Regular Meeting Ms. Colbath asked if the lots outside the city limits within the UGB would have any protections prior to annexation. Mr. Björklund replied that the Lane County Board of Commissioners would have the authority to process a legislative rezoning if they so chose. Ms. Muir said Lane County was under the same requirements as the City to comply with Goal 5, adding that City of Eugene planning staff was acting as a consultant for Lane County in making Goal 5 recommendations. She added that the City would recommend that Lane County adopt the proposed ordinance. Mr. Björklund presented an overview of the Goal 5 regulations via PowerPoint, that the Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone left the base zone intact. He said that, for example, R-1 zoning, which applied to most of the sites under consideration, would remain while the overlay zone would be applied on top of the R-1 zone. He added that the restrictions applied to only a portion of the sites. An un- buildable lot would never be created through the new regulations. Mr. Björklund said the Goal 5 regulations mirrored the West Eugene Wetland (WEW) regulations in use for ten years, in which there was a default protected area. He said if the default worked on a development site, it was a straight forward, objective process. Conversely, if the default did not work, a Type II review process occurred, in which standards were applied that allowed for a reduction of the protected area while taking steps to improve its functioning. This flexibility ensured any development potential was not eliminated. Mr. Björklund reviewed the Goal 5 schedule. • May 3, 2005, 4:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., public information meeting at the Hilyard Community Center • May 9, 2005, 11:30 a.m., Planning Commission work session • May 10, 2005, 4:30 p.m., Planning Commission joint work session with the Lane County Plan- ning Commission • May 10, 2005, 6:00 p.m., Planning Commission joint public hearing with the Lane County Plan- ning Commission • June 6, 13, 20, 2005, Planning Commission regular meetings for deliberation and action • September 2005, City Council Ms. Muir said the deadline for submittal to the State of Oregon was July 1, 2005. She said there was no mechanism to get any more waivers or extensions, and staff were doing their best to move the process along as quickly as possible. Mr. Björklund distributed three documents: • Eugene Natural Resources Conservation Project – Frequently Asked Questions About Goal 5 Natural Resources. • Eugene Natural Resources Conservation Project – Conserving Our Water Resources. • Replacement Maps o Sites Boundaries Eugene Goal 5 ESEE Analysis Group 11 – Significant Goal 5 Site Boundaries for North Flat creek, Middle Flat Creek, South flat Creek, and NW Express- MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 2, 2005 Page 6 Regular Meeting  way Ponds o Sites Boundaries Recommended for Protection Eugene Goal 5 ESEE Analysis Group 11 – Protected Goal 5 Resources o Goal 5 Water Resources Conservation Plan, Section IV, Map 3, Eugene Goal 5 ESEE Conclusions, Protected Goal 5 Resources o Goal 5 Water Resources Conservation Plan, Section IV, Map 5, Eugene Goal 5 ESEE Conclusions, Protected Goal 5 Resources o Goal 5 Water Resources Conservation Plan, Section IV, Map 13, Eugene Goal 5 ESEE Conclusions, Protected Goal 5 Resources In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Björklund said copies of the slide show were available on the City’s webpage. He added that a web address, www.EugeneNR.org ,for the City’s Goal 5 website would be available throughout the Goal 5 process. Ms. Colbath opened the floor to questions from commissioners. Ms. Levis thanked staff for a good job on the handouts. She said it would be nice to have a discussion on the process for Goal 5. She asked what homework the commissioners should be doing to facilitate the process, and ensure that the process remained fair. Mr. Björklund suggested having a discussion on how to the Planning Commission’s review and deliberation after the May 9 work session. He suggested that the commissioners begin by looking at the big picture concepts that had driven the staff recommendations to ensure that everyone understood the recommendations and the applicable regulations. City Attorney Emily Jerome stated that the Planning Commission had already been through part of the Goal 5 process, including review by the Planning Commission and the City Council, two levels of appeals with respect to which sites would be studied, that had been incorporated in the ordinance. She said the Planning Commission now needed to concentrate on the analysis. Mr. Björklund said the corrections to the inventory consisted primarily of fine tuning the existing sites, rather than adding or deleting sites. He said the one exception was the Land Conservation and Develop- ment Commission remand to Lane County to remove a portion of a seasonal pond that was part of site E- 76. He said the Commission found that it was not consistent with the applicable OARs. The staff recommendation was to remove the entire pond from the inventory. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher regarding Ms. Jeffries and Mr. Matthews’ inquiry about how category A through E wetlands, and the setbacks were determined, Mr. Björklund explained the decision making process. He said it was a two step process that consisted of: step one, identifying sites that would be recommended for protection; and step two, determining what the level of protection would be. Mr. Björklund said staff did not create a set of definitions or set of criteria that were applied to each site, but opted to rely on a broader view that consisted of the overall analysis and all available information that could be brought to a site. He said the ESEE analysis that the Planning Commission would see next week summarized the factors or characteristics of each site that led to the recommendation. Mr. Belcher asked if property owners or concerned citizens could be able to determine how the categories were applied. Mr. Björklund replied that was the intention, although the information and analysis are complex, and may not be understood by everyone . MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 2, 2005 Page 7 Regular Meeting Mr. Hledik asked why the OAR criteria of streams over 1,000 cfs were not used. Mr. Björklund explained that this was from the “Safe Harbor” criteria, and that there were only two streams in the Eugene UGB that exceed 1,000 cfs, Amazon Creek during peak flow and the Willamette River. This would not be an effective criterion due to the limited number of streams addressed, thus precluding good decision making based on differentiating levels of quality and function among all sites. In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Björklund said the Council would make a policy decision regarding what sites would be protected, and what the level of protection would be, which is different from application of clear and objective standards that is needed in administering the land use code. The approach was to allow some subjectivity, incorporating public input to the Planning Commission and City Council, into the policy decision making process. Mr. Björklund said once the policy decision was made, and the properties were rezoned, the regulations provided clear and objective standards for for properties within the overlay zones. Referring to Mr. Biggs question, Mr. Belcher said tree heights were involved in the case of some setback requirements. He asked if this was factored into the recommendations. Mr. Björklund said the methodology around average tree height of a mature, dominant tree for that riparian ecosystem came from the science of salmonid recovery. While acknowledging that a number of these resources provided habitat for salmonids, in particular the upper Willamette spring Chinook, this process was not intended and nor portrayed as fully analyzing the adequacy of the protection measures for threatened salmonid species. The potential tree height guidance was intentionally not used to establish setbacks for this Goal 5 process. Mr. Björklund said the potential tree height applied to the type of dominant tree in the riparian corridor in question. While a 200 foot Douglas Fir in a forest environment in the Cascade Range would lead to a potential 200 foot setback, typical species in the Eugene area, such as the Black Cottonwood with a maximum height of 120 feet, Oregon Ash, or various species of willow with maximum heights of 30 or 40 feet, may be dominant. He added that salmonids were not present in the south hills, even if Douglas Fir was present. Mr. Belcher said Mr. Matthews had asked if State listed sensitive species were to be considered in the safe harbor determination. Mr. Björklund quoted the OARs, saying that there were five criteria for wildlife habitat sites under the safe harbor provisions. He read the citation to which Mr. Matthews had referred. He said that while staff were aware that there were site records of species such as the pileated woodpecker, they were advised by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) that there was no documentation of a life support function or any listed endangered or sensitive species at the time of the consultation. Mr. Belcher submitted that feeding and nesting were life functions. Mr. Björklund said he did not know how ODFW or DLCD defined “life support functions,” iterating that staff relied on consultation with ODFW. He added that that the upland areas in question were not part of the Goal 5 inventory under consideration by the Planning Commission. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 2, 2005 Page 8 Regular Meeting Mr. Belcher asked what recourse was available for someone who had a question about how the safe harbor would apply. Ms. Jerome stated there was an appeal process, in which people who wanted to be off the list were heard from, but no one advocated for more protection. She added those issues were not raised when it was appropriate to bring them up. She said that the Planning Commission had the power to amend the existing inventory, for which there were specific policies. She iterated that was not what the Planning Commission was involved with at the present time. In response to Mr. Belcher, Ms. Jerome said the appeals process had run its course. She added that the City Council would need to take action to amend the inventory and include more resources. Mr. Belcher asked if it was conceivable for a stream to be piped to make a lot buildable. Mr. Björklund responded it was conceivable. Ms. Jerome referred to pages 18 and 19 in the packet that explained provisions of the ordinance that identified where adjustments could be allowed. She added there was a section of the ordinance that provided provisions related to Measure 37. In response to Mr. Hledik’s request for plausible specific examples, Ms. Jerome agreed that staff would bring specific examples to the next meeting. Mr. Belcher asked if the City of Eugene was in step with the Portland Metropolitan area. Ms. Muir said Portland had done some work related to the Title 3 provisions. In response a question from Mr. Belcher, Mr. Björklund said it was conceivable that after the process, the City of Eugene may want to review what had been put in place through the lens of salmonid habitat requirements and determine its adequacy. Responding to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Björklund said the ESA program had been referred to the Planning Commission acting as Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC). He added that the Metro Goal 5 citizen involvement plan approved by the Joint Planning Commissions Committee (JPCC) had been followed throughout the process. Ms. Muir said the Goal 5 citizen involvement plan was approved by a body (JPCC) before the Planning Commission became the CIC in July 2004. Mr. Björklund said the City had gone beyond City code requirements, citizen involvement plan requirements, and the state rules in terms of notice and public involvement, for citizen involvement for the Goal 5 process. He added that the notification process had been massive. Ms. Colbath asked how people would know how they were in a certain category. In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Björklund said the ESEE analysis that would be included in the next Planning Commission agenda packet would explain how stream categories were determined. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 2, 2005 Page 9 Regular Meeting Responding to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Björklund said the authority of the City Manager was often referred to in the code. He said the City Manager delegated the work to the appropriately trained and experienced staff, so while the City Manager may not have natural resources training and experience, staff had considerable training and experience. Ms. Jerome added that under the law, the City Manager has signatory authority. She assured the Planning Commission that the City Manager did not sign anything that he had not discussed with the experts on staff, regardless of the content of the Administrative Order. Ms. Jerome added that appeal issues never went to the City Manager for resolution. Mr. Belcher asked Mr. Biggs to contact staff to clarify his concern regarding continuous forest vegetation. Ms. Colbath asked staff to clarify earlier questions about OAR safe harbor criteria mapping from ODFW. Mr. Björklund replied that staff availed themselves of all the information that the state had at that time. Referring to the spreadsheet on page 37, Mr. Hudspeth asked how specific sites would be designated for protection. Mr. Björklund directed the commissioners to page 46 where the summary of ESEE conclusions was found, including what was protected, what category of wetlands was recommended, and what conserva- tion setbacks went with the categories. In response to Mr. Hudspeth, Ms. Jerome said criteria for wetlands significance were specifically called out the in OARs. In response to a question from Mr. Hledik, Mr. Björklund said large scale site specific G.I.S. based maps were available in electronic form. Responding to Mr. Hledik, Mr. Björklund said when measuring conservation setbacks, the default was the top of the bank, unless it was not identifiable. He added that it was easier for staff and property owners to identify the top of the bank than high water, noting that it varied from site to site. Mr. Hledik asked how the Native Plant Society of Oregon fit into the picture. Mr. Björklund said the Native Plant Society of Oregon had partnered with the City of Eugene in the development of the plant list for the West Eugene Wetlands area, and had been an important source of technical and scientific data. Mr. Björklund said all of the applicable documents were available on the City’s website in PDF format, or paper copies could be obtained at the Permit and Information Center. In response to Mr. Biggs, Mr. Björklund said a copy would be forwarded to the Eugene Public Library. Mr. Björklund led a brief review of the documents in the agenda packet, noting that additional informa- tion was forthcoming. In response to Mr. Hudspeth, Ms. Jerome said all non-tax lotted areas were publicly owned, thus eliminating any potential conflicts. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 2, 2005 Page 10 Regular Meeting Mr. Belcher asked staff to provide information on the complaint and enforcement process next week. Ms. Levis left at 1:30 p.m. III. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF Mr. Hledik reported that he had met with his Council buddy. There were no additional Items from Commission and none from staff. Ms. Colbath adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:31 a.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2005\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc050502.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 2, 2005 Page 11 Regular Meeting