Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue May 9, 2005 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath Vice President; Jon Belcher, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, Anne Marie Levis, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio member; Susan Muir, Neil Bjorklund, Gabriel Flock, Steve Nystrom, Ann Siegenthaler, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department staff; Emily Jerome, City Attorney’s Office; Lisa Arkin, Lane County Planning Commission; Charles Biggs, Jan Wostman, Lincoln Scof- field, Jim Spickerman, Diane Wiley, Terry Connolly, Lauri Segel, Bill Kloos, Roxie Cuellar, guests. ABSENT: Rick Duncan. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW THE AGENDA OF MAY 10, 2005 Goal 5 Natural Resources (CA 05-1, Z 05-8) Staff: Neil Björklund, 682-5507 II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF SUMMARY MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 1 Regular Meeting  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue May 9, 2005 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath Vice President; Jon Belcher, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, Anne Marie Levis, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio member; Susan Muir, Neil Bjorklund, Gabriel Flock, Steve Nystrom, Ann Siegenthaler, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department staff; Emily Jerome, City Attorney’s Office; Lisa Arkin, Lane County Planning Commission; Charles Biggs, Jan Wostman, Lincoln Scof- field, Jim Spickerman, Diane Wiley, Terry Connoll, Lauri Segel, Bill Kloos, Roxie Cuellar, guests. ABSENT: Rick Duncan. Mr. Lawless convened the Planning Commission at 11:34 a.m. Mr. Lawless explained the procedure for Public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, Eugene, spoke on behalf of himself. He asked for assurance from the Planning Commission that public comment made during the Planning Commission meetings regarding Goal 5 would be included as hearing testimony. Ms. Jerome arrived at 11:35 a.m. Ms. Levis arrived at 11:35 a.m. Mr. Biggs addressed upland habitat not included in Goal 5, since there were no water resources associated with it. He submitted a pamphlet entitled, Oak Habitat Protection and Restoration in Eugene, published by the City of Eugene, Parks and Open Space, 2004, as testimony related to the need and protection and the rarity of that habitat. Mr. Biggs stated that while on a tour of mixed use or nodal development with the Eugene City Council and Planning Commission, he observed significant areas of undeveloped oak upland habitat that would lose its protection status if it was not included in Goal 5. He urged the Planning Commission to suggest to the City Council that areas that did not have water resources be included in Goal 5 as soon as possible. He added that Gillespie Butte had been designated by the Eugene Tree Foundation with legacy oak trees and habitat. Ms. Muir invited Ms. Jerome to address Mr. Biggs’ request to include public comment as Goal 5 MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 1 Regular Meeting testimony. Ms. Jerome stated that it was highly unusual to accept testimony on issues scheduled for a public hearing at a later date, and strongly urged against continuing that practice. Ms. Jerome added that accepting testimony during the public comment portion of the meeting in a quasi- judicial matter would amount to an ex parte contact. She reminded Planning Commission members that they were required to disclose ex parte contacts prior to quasi-judicial proceedings. Ms. Jerome stated that while ex parte contacts did not need to be put on the record prior to legislative proceedings, a public hearing time and date had been set. She said it was very important for staff to maintain a very clean record of all testimony received, and there was a grey area regarding public comment opportunities. She added since Mr. Biggs had asked, his items should be included in the record. With respect to other testimony received during the public comment opportunity, it was not a part of the record unless the speaker requested it to be, and would be very confusing. Ms. Jerome noted that while staff generally defaulted to voluntarily including that testimony, the public comment time was not designed to accept evidence. She strongly urged the Planning Commission to consider a policy against taking any testimony during public comment for a pending item. Ms. Jerome emphasized that there was a public hearing specifically scheduled for testimony, and the public could submit written comments. Ms. Colbath said the Planning Commission did take Goal 5 testimony during the Public comment time at the May 2, 2005 meeting. She said she was torn between understanding the rules, and wanting to hear as much as possible from members of the public. Ms. Jerome stated that the public notice did not state that Goal 5 testimony would be accepted at the May 2, 2005 meeting, and others who wished to be involved in the process did not know about the opportunity or what was being said. Ms. Levis expressed a desire to ensure that the process was fair and clean. She stated that the Public comment time was never intended to be a time when testimony would be accepted on pending items. She added that the public could always submit concerns in writing, noting that she carefully reads all written materials submitted by the public. Mr. Belcher asked how far in advance before a public hearing was scheduled would testimony not be accepted. He added that he saw a lot of value in hearing peoples’ concerns as the Planning Commission conducted work sessions to enable the commissioners to discuss those concerns and ask questions of staff. He hoped there would be a way to make it possible to accept testimony during Public comment times. Ms. Levis said if Mr. Belcher’s suggestion was followed, it would be necessary to give notice. She added that would open all meetings to become public hearings. She reiterated that would get into fairness issues, and the Public comment time could expand from five to ten minutes, to thirty minutes or more. She opined that more people would opt to attend the daytime meetings rather than evening public hearings, which would radically change how the Planning Commission operated. Mr. Lawless noted that staff had worked hard to develop reasonable amounts of time to discuss known issues, and expressed concern and discomfort that a more open ended opportunity for a broader range of items that could be submitted as testimony would derail the scheduled agenda. Mr. Belcher asked if individuals would have an opportunity to submit written testimony prior to the MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 2 Regular Meeting public hearing for distribution to the Planning Commission. Ms. Muir said staff was already receiving such written testimony, to which Mr. Belcher stated that he did not see the difference. Ms. Muir replied that the written testimony would be in the record and in the case file. She added that the public was directed to provide testimony at the public hearing rather than the Public comment time. In response to Ms. Colbath, Ms. Muir affirmed that all written testimony received from the public would be provided to the Planning Commission in their public hearing agenda packets. Ms. Muir surveyed Planning Commissioners to ensure there would be a quorum for the May 10, 2005 public hearing, and noted that Commissioners Belcher, Colbath, Hledik, Hudspeth, and Levis would attend. I. STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW THE AGENDA OF MAY 10, 2005 Goal 5 Natural Resources (CA 05-1, Z 05-8) Staff: Neil Björklund, 682-5507 Mr. Björklund distributed replacement documents for: • Exhibit F, pages 115-135 from the May 2, 2005 agenda packet. • Exhibit A, Section 4, Maps on 51, 53 and 61 from the May 2, 2005 the agenda packet. • Testimony received to date on Goal 5 Natural Resources. Mr. Björklund corrected two typographical errors in the Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy (ESEE) Analysis. Page 9, paragraph 2, first sentence should read, “The Type “C” Impact Area for riparian and upland wildlife habitat sites is the combined total area of these three component areas: (1) the area between the banks of the stream, (2) the area within 50 feet of the top of banks, plus (3) any riparian vegetation within the Goal 5 site boundary that extends beyond 50 feet from the top of bank.” Page 9, paragraph 3, first sentence should read, “The Type “D” Impact Area for riparian and upland wildlife habitat sites is the combined total area of these three component areas: (1) the area between the banks of the stream, (2) the area within 25 feet of the top of banks, plus (3) any riparian vegetation within the Goal 5 site boundary that extends beyond 25 feet from the top of bank.” Mr. Björklund offered an explanation of the materials in the agenda packet. He said the ESEE was completed at two levels, the first of which attempted to capture all of the potential ESEE consequences that would apply to all types of possible sites and uses, as allowed in the administrative rule for Goal 5 as a paper saving measure. Mr. Björklund provided a review of the ESEE Analysis. He explained that the areas were categorized on the following basis: • Sites within the Royal Node specific plan area, where an extensive planning process that looked at wetlands and waterways, and identified areas to protected. Those areas were drawn as a foot- print on a map that was incorporated into Eugene Code (EC) Chapter 9. Staff had recommended the same protection for the sites as the protection specified in the Royal Node Plan. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 3 Regular Meeting  • Two sites contained cement lined channels that served as critical connecting corridors in a fish bearing waterway. The first was in Alton Baker Park adjacent to the bicycle bridge, where native fish including salmon could move into the water system. Failure to protect the system could result in the waterway being piped, thus eliminating use fby fish. Since the site was lined by ce- ment walkways on both sides, there was no riparian habitat to protect, thus no need for a setback. The second site was Amazon Creek between 24th Avenue and the east edge of the Lane County Fair Grounds. He said Amazon Creek was in a cement channel, with no riparian vegetation, and no need for a setback. He added that this was an important corridor to keep open to protect im- portant upstream and downstream habitat. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath, Mr. Björklund said the staff recommendation was to establish a conservation area for the two identified sites, to keep the channel open at its current width and not allow it to be piped. He iterated that the Royal Node differed because of the defined protection areas that went beyond the edge of the channel. Mr. Björklund provided a summary of the remaining categories, and an overview of the type of sites recommended for each categorization, as explained in the ESEE Analysis in the agenda packet. In response to a question from Mr. Hledik, Mr. Björklund said the waterside protection overlay district applied only in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan (WEWP) area. He added that some sites within the WEWP boundary were included in the ESEE because they had not been considered for protection in the WEWP nor plan modifications. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath, Mr. Björklund said agricultural uses were treated as a conflicting use, noting that agricultural uses such as structures and grazing were allowed in the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). He further explained that the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) stated that local jurisdictions were not required to allow agricultural uses, adding that was a local decision. He added that the Lane County Fair Grounds was not zoned agricultural, although agriculture related activities occurred at that site. Responding to Mr. Belcher, Ms. Jerome said that the impact area was the study area for each site, which was what staff looked at. The ESEE Analysis represented what was found through the study. She added that although the Planning Commission may struggle with the category assigned to sites, the impact area need not be addressed. Mr. Björklund stated that the ESEE approach differed from the WEWP study. He said the Planning Commission task for the ESEE Analysis was to determine if it agreed with the staff analysis. In response to Mr. Belcher, Mr. Björklund replied that the Planning Commission needed to look at the findings for individual sites, and rewrite the findings based upon facts pertinent to the site, if the Planning Commis- sion found that staff erred. Mr. Björklund said that it was necessary to consider the quality and relative value of the site in compari- son to social, economic and energy factors. In response to Mr. Hledik, Mr. Björklund stated that the 60 foot setback applied only to portions of Amazon Creek that were not in a cement channel. Mr. Björklund added that the impact areas always included the entire mapped site plus 50 foot buffers from the high water line. He noted that conservation areas included riparian areas outside the setbacks. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 4 Regular Meeting Mr. Björklund next addressed the adjustment review process, described on page 17, and the restoration options described on page 9 of the May 2, 2005 agenda packet. Mr. Hledik referred to a channel that used to run through the Gilham Elementary School property, noting that it had been rerouted to allow for ball field construction. He asked if this type of activity would be allowed under Goal 5. Mr. Björklund replied it would be possible if doing so improved the natural values of the channel, saying that a channel could be built to allow for a meander and wide enough to allow vegetation to grow. Conversely, simply cutting a straight channel to get more developable area alone would be inconsistent with Goal 5. Mr. Sullivan asked if all changes needed to occur with specific development proposals, to which Ms. Jerome replied that it would be helpful to be able to adjust the conservation area to accommodate the proposed development, but other issues could be taken into consideration. She added that it would be more difficult to apply standards if the intended use was unknown. In response to Mr. Belcher, Ms. Jerome expected a high level of interest on the part of the public and the City Council related to the reduction of fair market value provision. She said the language was intended to address Ballot Measure 37 issues, and she expected there would be new legislation that would clarify the intent of the draft language. Mr. Belcher expressed concern about the interpretation of fair market value and noted there was no provision for government compensation. Ms. Jerome responded that there had been no court decisions to date regarding Ballot Measure 37. Mr. Björklund said the Type III process would be implemented only after other adjustments had been exhausted. In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Björklund said there were only a few sites in which staff recommended a smaller conservation setback than impact area, and that where the setback was smaller than the impact area, this was primarily because the impact area analysis was more generalized. He added that a major factor was that in impact areas headwater streams were broadly grouped. When a portion of the stream was steep, the whole stream segment was treated as steep. In other cases, when stream segments were of lower quality and not as steep, a smaller setback was recommended. Mr. Björklund referred to a wall map that illustrated setbacks. Mr. Björklund said approximately 60 people attended a public workshop on May 3, 2005. Additionally, approximately 200 hundred telephone calls and email messages had been received. He said the level of concern demonstrated to date compared to the inventory phase of two years ago was greatly reduced. He added that the majority of questions were related to people asking to continue to conduct the same activities on their property. In response to Mr. Hledik, Ms. Muir replied that the City of Springfield was going through a similar Goal 5 process. Responding to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Björklund referred to page 461 in the agenda packet, which included draft findings that stated that areas could be protected without reducing the buildable land supply below the projected demand. Mr. Björklund stated that all documents in the packet were available on the department’s website, with MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 5 Regular Meeting the exception of public testimony. He added a reference copy was available at the Permit and Information Center counter, and a copy would be sent to the Eugene Public Library. II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF Ms. Jerome said that she would attend the May 10, 2005 public hearing, after which time Glenn Klein would substitute for her. In response to Mr. Hledik, Mr. Nystrom stated that the Spring Knoll appeal was still pending. Mr. Belcher said he attended the memorial service for Bruce Miller, a long time local activist. Ms. Colbath reported that she and Mr. Lawless accompanied the City Council on a recent mixed use tour. Mr. Hudspeth encouraged commissioners to read an article in the May 9, 2005 Register Guard regarding mixed use developments. In response to a question from Ms. Levis, Ms. Muir said the annual joint session with the City Council would take place in September, and encouraged commissioners to continue to maintain contact with their council buddies. In response to Mr. Belcher, Ms. Muir said staff was working on a retirement party for former commis- sioner Charles Rusch. Following a brief discussion about the mechanics of the joint public hearing with the Lane County Planning Commission on May 10, 2005, Mr. Lawless adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:18 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2005\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc050509.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 6 Regular Meeting