Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Joint Public Hearing Eugene Planning Commission and Lane County Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue May 10, 2005 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Eugene Planning Commission: Mitzi Colbath Vice President; Jon Belcher, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, Anne Marie Levis, members; Susan Muir Steve Nystrom, Neil Björk- lund, Ann Siegenthaler, Planning and Development Department; Emily Jerome, City At- torney’s Office. Lane County Planning Commission: Steve Dignam, Chair; Lisa Arkin, Ed Becker, James Carmichael, Marion Esty, Juanita Kirkham, Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienicki, members; Kent Howe, Lane County Planning Department. ABSENT: Eugene Planning Commission: Rick Duncan, John Lawless. Lane County Planning Commission: Jacque Betz, Mark Herbert. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE EUGENE AND LANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONS Eugene Goal 5 Natural Resources Conservation Project (CA 05-1, Z 05-8). The purpose of the public hearing was to take testimony on the Eugene Goal 5 Natural Resources Conservation Project. Ms. Levis, seconded by Mr. Hudspeth, moved to extend the time keep the record open for the Eugene Planning Commission until 5:00 p.m. on May 24, 2005. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. Ms. Kirkham, seconded by Ms. Esty, moved to extend the time keep the record open for the Lane County Planning Commission until 5:00 p.m. on May 24, 2005. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Staff: Neil Björklund, Senior Planner (541) 682-5507 E-mail: neil.h.björklund@ci.eugene.or.us SUMMARY MINUTES – Joint Meeting May 10, 2005 Page 1 Eugene Planning Commission and Lane County Planning Commission Public Hearing  MINUTES Joint Public Hearing Eugene Planning Commission and Lane County Planning Commission Sloat Room–The Atrium Building–99 West 10th Avenue May 10, 2005 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Eugene Planning Commission: Mitzi Colbath Vice President; Jon Belcher, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, Anne Marie Levis, members; Susan Muir Steve Nystrom, Neil Björk- lund, Ann Siegenthaler, Planning and Development Department; Emily Jerome, City At- torney’s Office. Lane County Planning Commission: Steve Dignam, Chair; Lisa Arkin, Ed Becker, James Carmichael, Marion Esty, Juanita Kirkham, Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienicki, members; Kent Howe, Lane County Planning Department. ABSENT: Eugene Planning Commission: Rick Duncan, John Lawless. Lane County Planning Commission: Jacque Betz, Mark Herbert. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE EUGENE AND LANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONS Eugene Goal 5 Natural Resources Conservation Project (CA 05-1, Z 05-8). The purpose of the public hearing was to take testimony on the Eugene Goal 5 Natural Resources Conservation Project. Staff: Neil Björklund, Senior Planner (541) 682-5507 E-mail: neil.h.bjorklund@ci.eugene.or.us Ms. Colbath called the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission to order at 6:05 p.m. Ms. Colbath explained that the purpose of the meeting was to conduct a joint public hearing of the Eugene Planning Commission and Lane County Planning Commission on the Eugene Goal 5 Natural Resources Conservation Project. Ms. Colbath said that members of the Eugene Planning Commission were unpaid volunteers appointed to four year terms by the Eugene City Council. The Eugene Planning Commission met four to six times per month to discuss planning projects and proposals, and to make recommendations to the City Council on planning issues. She added that the Planning Commission did not make final decisions on legislative matters, but rather made recommendations to the City Council. Ms. Colbath explained how the process worked. Members of city staff, generally planners working in the Planning and Development Department (PDD), prepared recommendations with background information MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 2005 Page 1 Public Hearing for the Planning Commission to begin its discussion on an issue. The Planning Commission asked the public for feedback on the staff recommendations at public hearings. She said the Planning Commission wanted to hear the ideas, concerns, and thoughts of the public on the draft proposal. The Planning Commission valued those ideas, concerns, and thoughts, and used them in the decision making process. Ms. Colbath asked that the meeting be orderly, fair, and respectful to all parties who wished to speak. She added that public testimony could be submitted in writing or e-mail in addition to oral testimony. Ms. Colbath explained how the meeting would be conducted. Eugene Planning Commissioners introduced themselves and Ms. Colbath introduced City of Eugene staff. Mr. Dignam introduced himself as the Chair of the Lane County Planning Commission. The Lane County Planning Commissioners introduced themselves. Ms. Muir provided an overview of the process. She said the Eugene City Council had a goal statement regarding the healthy, natural, and built environment for the City of Eugene which said, A community that conserves and enhances the natural environment and provides an attractive and healthy place to live is what we want to be. She added that the City of Eugene strove to preserve community resources for future generations, promote livability, involve Eugene citizens in shaping the City’s future and balancing the needs of all citizens. Ms. Muir said Goal 5 was one of 19 statewide planning goals that guided land use law in the State of Oregon. Goal 5 called for local governments to protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. Oregon had adopted specific rules that required local governments to comply with Goal 5 regarding mapping natural resources, identifying land uses that conflicted with those natural resources, and studying the impacts of protecting or not protecting those resources. The rules also required local governments to determine which natural resource sites to protect and exactly how to protect them. Ms. Muir said the proposal presented tonight was the final piece needed to complete this task and to accomplish the goals. She acknowledged that this had been a long road for the public, the City and County staff, and for the commissioners. Mr. Björklund said the information before the Planning Commissions was a large and complex agenda packet. He reviewed the decisions that had already been made. In 2003 and 2004, the City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners adopted a Goal 5 inventory of riparian sites and upland wildlife habitat sites in the south hills. While the agenda packet contained minor corrections to that inventory to make the mapping of the sites more accurate, the purpose of the public hearing was not to consider whether the sites should be included on the inventory. The Goal 5 sites had already been determined to be significant and approved by both local bodies. He said the Goal 5 sites had completed the process of acknowledgement by the State Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). Mr. Björklund said the purpose of tonight’s meeting was to look at the riparian and upland inventory sites as well as the wetlands sites that had been added to the inventory since the 2003 adoption, and make these key policy decisions about each of the sites: • Which of the sites warranted protection under local regulation inside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) by both the City and the County? MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 2005 Page 2 Public Hearing  • What level of protection should be applied? • What mechanisms should be used to enact that level of protection? Mr. Björklund reviewed the agenda packet and noted a poster in the front of the Council Chamber that provided tips for public testimony. Ms. Colbath opened the public hearing for the Eugene Planning Commission. She said each speaker would be limited to three minutes, and added that written testimony could be submitted. She said a timeline for deliberation and decision would be developed following the testimony. Mr. Dignam opened the public hearing for the Lane County Planning Commission. Debbie Jeffries, 3800 North Delta Highway, Eugene, addressed both bodies, since her testimony dealt with E76. Ms. Jeffries understood that the City’s draft ordinance for the UT would also be considered for a County vote. Referring to section “C” of the ordinance, Ms. Jeffries said the language in the draft was incorrect. She said she had spent five years on this project. She quoted the LCDC language that stated the LCDC concluded that the local government, the City, authored what was for the County “did not establish an adequate factual basis in the record, that the portion of E76 subject to the appeal satisfies the definition of riparian corridor in the OAR.” She said there was nothing in the LCDC board order that stated or suggested that the site no longer met significance criteria, adding that was not part of the argument before LCDC. Ms. Jeffries asked that both ordinances reflect what the LCDC order actually stated. She said the part of E76 that was inside the city limits was not a part of the above mentioned appeal or decision, and should not be included. Addressing the setback regulations, Ms. Jeffries said there was nothing in the ordinance that defined how the setbacks were developed, and there was no opportunity for property owners to review the regulations for accuracy. She said this had been raised at planning sessions, and she had been told by staff that the issue was too complicated to explain. She said the property owners needed to be able to understand the issue, and suggested if it was too complicated to explain, perhaps it did not belong in the ordinance. Ms. Jeffries said there was no public hearing or public input opportunity regarding the setbacks. Ms. Jeffries said there were lined, manmade ponds on her property and the properties of others, that were identified in the wetland map as not significant or part of the Goal 5 process, and she asked for clarifica- tion on whether that was correct. Terry Connolly, 1401 Willamette Street, said he was representing the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce. He said his comments were not specific to any particular to any site that would be subject to the Water Resources Conservation Overlay zone, but rather the Chamber had questions regarding the ESEE findings for Goal 9 Commercial and Industrial Lands. He said although there was a statement in the findings that the ordinance would not impact the supply of commercial and industrial lands, the charts indicated an impact of 43.4 acres for commercial land and 44.73 acres for industrial land. He said it would be helpful to have an explanation of the differing conclusions. Mr. Connolly stated there were two footnotes in the findings for Commercial and Industrial Lands that opened the door to the bigger question regarding the data that had been used to make the determination that there was no impact on commercial or industrial lands. The footnote stated “The draft analysis did not address lands that had been redesignated to other land use categories since the adoption of the Commercial and Buildable Lands Inventory, and Industrial Lands Inventory. This data will be addressed MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 2005 Page 3 Public Hearing in a later draft.” He asked if the 1992 analysis was used to determine the impact on the hundreds of acres of land once zoned industrial that was now within the West Eugene Wetlands (WEW) or had been purchased by the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM). He asked if the data would be available for the Planning Commissions’ deliberations. He said the data used to make findings for commercial land came from the 1992 Commercial Lands Study, and much had changed since them. He asserted that the land supply impact analysis was not tested against current conditions, but rather those that existed thirteen years ago. Mr. Connolly said although the chart indicated that there were 658 acres of commercial land in the inventory, it was important to note that amount of land no longer remained in the 2005 inventory. For example, the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce conducted a land supply analysis in 2001, and found only 113 acres of commercial land remained on the inventory. He said the Planning Commissions would come to a different conclusion if it considered 113 acres less 43 acres, and the impact the ordinance would have on the economic development provisions of Goal 9. He asked the Planning Commissions to make their decisions on what existed in 2005, and not the inventories from 1992, or to at least ensure that proper calculations were used. John Hammer, 1820 Elk Horn, Eugene, said he owned three lots on a seven acre parcel that backed up to Ayres Pond, as well as several other parcels. He agreed with the findings of the City on those parcels. Mr. Hammer said he disagreed with some elements, noting there were gross inaccuracies in mapping where the City had depicted acreage as riparian corridor on his site. He said there was a gravity fed southeast slough into Ayres Pond. He said the slough dried up when the water ran out, and contained no fish, but the City construed it as a fish habitat. He stated the City of Eugene Department of Public Works cleaned the slough out annually with a track hoe in preparation of the fall/winter runoff that provided a quick flow into Ayres Pond through a concrete pipe that fell 20 feet below to a concrete spillway before entering Ayres Pond. He concluded this was not fish habitat, and therefore no setback should be required, and the site should not be included in the Water Resource Conservation Overlay Zone. Mr. Hammer said the City labeled site E48 B-2 as having the same elevation as Ayres Pond, when in fact the lot was at street level. He added the vegetation on the lot was Douglas Fir, oak trees, and a scattering of blackberry bushes. This area should not be included in Goal 5 Conservation Overlay Zone. Two other areas did not meet riparian standards. One had oak trees and was mowed regularly, while the other was at street level. Mr. Hammer asked to have these areas removed from the Goal 5 restrictions, and to keep the record open for further review and corrections. Roxie Cuellar, 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, Oregon, said she represented the Home Builders Association (HBA) of Lane County. Ms. Cuellar requested that the record be kept open until at least 5:00 p.m. on May 20, 2005. She said the HBA had contracted with the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) for several years to conduct a residential lands study. She said the last land study that was completed by LCDC in 1999 was based upon 1995 data. Ms. Cuellar said the HBA wished to conduct another study based upon the LCOG and local planning departments’ criteria, to develop an accurate representation of the current land availability. She added that the HBA had similar concerns regarding the residential land supply, as those of the Chamber of Commerce related to commercial and industrial land supplies. She said the HBA wanted to discuss the findings under Goal 10 after the data was compiled. She said any impact on the buildable land supply should be compared to the impact as it existed today opposed to the impact to buildable lands as they existed ten years ago. Ms. Cuellar said she would be able to provide a rough estimate of the available residential land by the end MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 2005 Page 4 Public Hearing of next week. She added that she would have refined figures at a later date for the City Council. Lisa Warnes, 5020 Nectar Way, Eugene, provided written testimony to staff. She addressed site E37M- 1. She appreciated the extensive effort that had gone into the Goal 5 process. However, she expressed serious concerns about how rushed the process was, as well as the recommended setbacks for stream corridors, wetlands, and riparian corridors. She said 100 foot setbacks should be the absolute minimum to effectively protect natural resources. She said the amount of setback would somewhat limit development, but asked if the goal was not to provide protection for natural resources. Ms. Warnes said she was also concerned about not being able to map wetlands because they were under a forest canopy, and the owner would not allow access to the property so that it could be properly evaluated for natural resources. She stated that she had not seen one natural resource fully protected. The best protection given was limiting conflicting uses within adequate setbacks. Site E37M-1 in the south hills was loaded with natural resources on which the only mapping included the stream corridor. She said the land contained many streams that flowed into three acres of wetlands, as well as upland wildlife habitat, that was rated the highest value for natural features, and the most pristine forest in the City of Eugene. She said it was slated for development of approximately 120 homes. She said with the lack of protection under current Goal 5 recommendations, citizens may loose this open space with its potential for connection to the Ridgeline Trail System, and loss of the view to be replaced with homes. She said the critical loss was the damage to the watershed on this property, the East Fork Amazon headwaters. The site was recommended for limited conflicting uses. Given the steepness of the slopes, even limited use would devastate the ecological values of the property as well as creating the possibility of a landslide area that threatened people and property downhill from the site. Ms. Warnes recommended addition of the wetlands to the Goal 5 inventory. She said if this site was a reflection of Goal 5 as a whole, there were serious flaws with the Goal 5 study, and it needed to go back to the drawing board. She felt strongly that Goal 5 should be a very solid tool for protecting the dwindling natural resources, not a rushed, watered down document that development minded city officials, attorneys and developers could manipulate for their financial gain at the expense of everyone’s natural resources. Kevin Cardoza, 4617 Symphony Drive, Eugene, addressed E58A. Mr. Cardoza said this was a complex situation. He said a creek behind his house had been owned by the City as open space since 2002. He said the site contained a wetland, riparian corridor, and a water conservation resource overlay zone. The April 25, 2005 draft stated that Mr. Cardoza needed to have his fence 40 feet from the bank, while a May 2, 2005 supplement stated that his fence needed to be 50 feet from the wetlands. He said these two requirements were in contraction to each other. Mr. Cardoza spoke with Mr. Björklund, saying that was city land, and the riparian zone was redone in 2003. Since that time, the City had clear cut the site with tractor mowers. He said the City had failed to remove barrels on the site as he had requested. He stated there were conflicting statements between planning staff and Parks and Open Space staff that caused confusion among home owners. He said staff was overwhelmed by the number of citizen phone calls and citizens needed to know how their land is affected. He commended both Mr. Björklund and Ms. Siegenthaler for their work on the project. Diane Wiley, 1295 Franklin Boulevard, Eugene, submitted written testimony, and identified herself as the Director of the University of Oregon (UO) Riverfront Research Park (RRP). She said her comments were focused on the UO’s RRP property that was inside the city limits, and included three sites, WA along the Willamette River, E40 a riparian corridor along the Millrace, and WR-4 a wetland corridor MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 2005 Page 5 Public Hearing along the Millrace. Ms. Wiley said the UO had followed the Goal 5 process for many years, and fully supported the intent and goals of protecting significant natural resource and wetland corridors to protect habitat and water resources. She said the UO requested recognition of the existing protections that were contained in the Parks Adopted Master Plan and a variety of land use processes that exceed the current Goal 5 restrictions. The UO hoped that the Eugene Planning Commission would find it unnecessary to rezone the UO property to apply the Conservation Overlay zone. She said the conservation rezoning established general protections that primarily involved setbacks that applied to a large number of properties in the commu- nity, each of which had a variety of characteristics, and had usually had not been through other land use processes. The UO believed that the RRP was in a different category. Ms. Wiley said the UO had been through a multi-year process to develop plans for the 67 acre site. She said the general plan designation had been redesignated from heavy industrial to university research. She added a unique zoning district had been created that recognized the Willamette River and the Millrace issues, as well as rezoning two subdivisions. Most importantly the site’s master plan had been developed and was found to be consistent with the Willamette River greenway, for which a conditional use permit had been issued. Ms. Wiley said the master plan was developed to value the natural environment and riparian habitats along both of the waterways. Over 50 percent of the site had been set aside as open space. There were multiple restrictions, including lot coverage restrictions, building height limitations, building separation requirements, building profile offsets, and solar access requirements, as well as a variety of flood plain and storm drainage requirements that applied to the property. Ms. Wiley said the UO had protected the riparian bank along the Willamette River, the existing trees, and the understory of native vegetation. She added that the UO had a specific riparian area management plan for the site, consisting of differing characteristics throughout the site. She said the plan had been developed sensitively, and there would be no additional value gained by rezoning. Marty Peets, 3734 Southwest 58th Drive, Portland, Oregon, said he was a subdivision developer with three projects in Eugene, either recently completed, or in the development process. He said of all sites had assets that were either listed for protection or not. He said most new development projects in the city of Eugene had issues with wetlands, stream corridors, or open channels, due to the limited amount of available land. Mr. Peets addressed E35A, AMA-5a, AMA-5b, all of which involved Videra Creek in the south hills. He said the recently built Braewood West subdivisions were part of the Braewood Hills Third Addition Planned Unit Development (PUD), that was approved by the City in 2002. Mr. Peets read a letter that said there were several lots remaining to be sold, all of which were approved within the last three years. He said this development had set asides for open space and conservation zones, and approximately ten percent of the land mass was owned by the City either by gift or purchase. Mr. Peets asked that the record be kept open for a while and agreed to submit his letter as written testimony. Richard R. Bushell II, 2930 Norkenzie Road, Eugene, spoke on E48 B-2, noted in the ESEE document as the eastern portion of the Dawson Slough System. He said he would submit United Stated Geological Service (USGS) photos from 1975 and 2000 that showed Dodson Slough did not have an eastern wing. He said the portion noted in the inventory as the eastern slough was an elevated ditch for runoff that went to Q Street in Springfield, according to the City of Eugene Public Works Department. He said his location, which annually accumulated three to five feet of trash and debris, was cleaned out each summer by Public Works. Mr. Bushell submitted photographs that showed that the slough dropped 20 feet before entering the splash MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 2005 Page 6 Public Hearing area leading to Ayres Pond. He said the site was currently categorized as a Class C stream, noting that it had been very difficult to find the definition of a Class C stream. He said it seemed to be characterized by being full of water during significant portions of the year, and being fish bearing. He said there was no possibility of fish being in the ditch, noting that an adjacent area with trees was categorized as upland that was not going to be included in the inventory because of the elevation. Mr. Bushell asserted that the ditch was at the same elevation as the treed area. Mr. Bushell asked that E48 B-2 be stricken from the inventory. He encouraged the Planning Commis- sions to keep the record open since the information and documents needed to research the findings and categorization had only become publicly available in the last couple of days. Rick Workman, 770 Chestnut Drive, Eugene, said the property was in the UGB. He had received a letter stating that the City wanted to make the back of his property wetlands. He said there had been no water on the property for over two years, and asked that it be removed from the list. Therin E. Moreland, 700 Chestnut Drive, Eugene, tax lot 3000, assessor’s map 17042344. Mr. Moreland said he had lived on the property for approximately 25 years. He expressed a wish continue to be able to mow down the blackberries that grew on the back of the property. Douglas M. Heer, 1786 Moonshadow, Eugene, said his home was on lot 2000 and he also owned lot 3100. He asked the Planning Commissioners not to impose any new regulations on his property through the Goal 5 inventory, because it would greatly affect his future plans. He said he bought lot 3100, one of the last undeveloped lots on South Shasta Loop, as an investment for his family. He said he was the current president of the Shasta Ridge Association that owned lot 2900 that was approximately 2 acres set aside for conservation that had two streams running through it. He felt lot 2900 should be taken instead of his other properties. Mr. Heer said the area on his property was a drainage ditch for South Shasta Loop and he did not understand how it could be classified the same as year round creeks, opining that it was Type E at best. He said when Shasta Loop was developed, the ditch would fill up along the road and run through his property. He asked the Commissions to take a closer look at the area, reassess it and be fair with his family. Dan Leahy, 2405 Bailey Hill Road, Eugene, provided written testimony. He said the naming designa- tions on the map for site E66 stated Golden Gardens or DeSoto Lake, both of which were incorrect. He said the lake was misnamed, and his 10 acre site was mislabeled as 5.30 acres. He said he did not understand what part of his property the inventory alluded to. He said this process started about 15 years ago. He bought the property about 5 years ago, and had developed it into 18 lots, 14 of which fronted Mallard Lake, and 9 of which had been sold. Two lots remained from the first phase that was approved in 2002. It was necessary to build on the edge of the bank, with 12 feet available for construction. The Goal 5 inventory would take away from the value of the lots. Mr. Leahy stated there were three lots on the other side of the lake, lots 9, 10, and 11, which were 115 feet deep, with the buildable portion being 67 feet to 76 feet. He said if 20 feet was taken, there would not be much left to build on. He said he recently spent $23,000 to add 10 feet to the three lots. He had a panhandle lot with 200 feet of lake frontage, which would lose 4,000 feet from the lot if the 20 foot setback was enforced. He concluded by saying the Planning Commission and the State had lost their integrity if his property was not taken off the list. Mark Hoyt, 475 Cottage Street, Northwest, Suite 120, Salem, Oregon, said he represented Joseph W. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 2005 Page 7 Public Hearing Green, the owner of E37 M-1. He said the site was being considered for development as a PUD. As part of the PUD process, extensive natural resource assessments had been done on the site. They were in the process of working with the neighborhood organizations to get input to be able to provide a satisfactory plan. He said they were attempting to proceed in a thoughtful, contemplative manner to be able to address the uniqueness of the property, and put together a development that would compliment the property and not destroy it. He asked that the record remain open to provide the time to evaluate the criteria and conclusions reached by the staff report and provide written comments. DeWayne D. Colombe, 3930 Shannon Street, Eugene, said he had a slough on undeveloped land behind his house, and he agreed that people had a right to do what they wanted with their land within the law. He said he was confused why he was on the list, and he wondered where the water would go if the slough was filled in. Lauri Segel, 1192 Lawrence Street, Eugene, was speaking on behalf of 1000 Friends of Oregon and on behalf of public lands. She noted that no one had spoken on behalf of public lands, and asked to be thought of as an advocate for open space and other public lands. She asked that all water resources designated as public lands have at least 20 foot setbacks and more as warranted, as well as a water resource and/or water resource overlay zone. She said many of the sites designated as public lands were proposed for no setbacks, and no water resources zone. She said the water resources that traversed public and private lands were related. Noting that water did not obey artificial geographic boundaries, she asked that important functioning water resources on private lands not be discounted because of being on private land. She said lending resources to private land owners while not considering it theirs was one way to help protect public resources for future generations. Ms. Segel asked the commissions to consider including a requirement that the already built, developed areas be shown to be legally permitted, before consideration of exemptions or being removed from the water overlay zone. Ms. Segel asked that the written record remain open. She stated that she supported the ordinance. Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, Eugene, said the analysis should state that it was done during a drought trend, and may not have captured all relevant Goal 5 sites. Mr. Biggs asked for clarification regarding what impacts this would have on refinement plans. He asked where and how it addressed pre- existing PUDS and Willamette Greenway Permits WGPs. Mr. Biggs said the current study did not adequately achieve Goal 5 objectives to protect natural resources and wildlife habitat, since the methodology excluded upland forests, upland and wetland prairies, oak woodlands and savannahs, riparian habitats and bottomland forests, and wetlands. He said the habitats for those areas had diminished dramatically, from 40 to 99 percent, according to literature he had read. He added that city pamphlets on oak woodlands said that habitat type catered to over 200 species of birds, animals, and plants. Mr. Biggs said the ordinance was flawed, especially when one of the habitats was home to the Oregon state bird, the Western Meadowlark that inhabited grasslands and prairies. Additionally, the Oregon White Oak was missing from the inventory list. Jan Spencer, 212 Benjamin, Eugene, in the River Road area, spoke on behalf of the streams, corridors, wetlands, and particularly the Upper Amazon, which he had hiked extensively. He said the headwaters MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 2005 Page 8 Public Hearing were quite an area, and he was involved about six years ago with raising approximately $75,000 to purchase some of the property to safeguard the area. It was important to keep in mind the benefits of healthy stream corridors, clean water, and habitat that were essential parts of the goals. He noted that the reason for Goal 5 was to preserve and protect these kinds of areas. Having the maximum permissible setbacks and buffers between the wet areas and development was essential, and would have economic benefits. New development tended to value the natural amenities and provided benefits for developers to encourage maximum available setbacks. He concluded by asking the Planning Commissions to recommend to the City Council and Board of Commissioners that maximum setbacks and buffers be used. Sherry Zarcone, 2133 Delta Street, Eugene, tax lot 17041422-2231, said she had spoken with Mr. Björklund on May 5, 2005. She said he was thorough and patient in describing how the proposal would affect her property. She understood that her house would be spared. She asked if the proposal for the existing fence and landscaping was an opinion or a decision that had already been made. Ms. Colbath said staff would respond in writing to questions posed at this meeting. Ms. Zarcone said she was generally in support of the project because she moved here because it was beautiful. She said land can not be replaced one it was grabbed up. She had no problem with a 25 foot setback. Jan Wilson, 1260 President Street, Eugene, was in agreement with Ms. Zarcone’s statement. Ms. Wilson said she moved to Eugene because of its natural amenities. She said the ditch behind Washington School had been filled with frogs, insects and grasses. She said that all of these areas are needed. She said most of the affected areas were already developed, and the proposals were not onerous and would not have much impact. It was important to save as much as possible. She was concerned about Ascot Park, E45, recommended for no protection, was public land. She said the students at Monroe School had spent considerable time renovating the site. She said she would submit written comments on Ascot Park. She said the public land should be protected to the maximum. She said when the open waterways ordinance was lost, the creek behind Washington School was also lost. Mr. Dignam closed the Lane County Planning Commission public hearing. Ms. Colbath closed the Eugene Planning Commission public hearing. Ms. Colbath opened the floor to questions from the Planning Commissioners. There was a brief discussion regarding the schedule and State deadline for completing the Goal 5 process among staff and Planning Commissioners. Mr. Dignam said the Lane County Planning Commission would deliberate the issue after the City of Eugene was completed with the process. Ms. Levis, seconded by Mr. Hudspeth, moved to extend the time keep the record open for the Eugene Planning Commission until 5:00 p.m. on May 24, 2005. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. Ms. Kirkham, seconded by Ms. Esty, moved to extend the time keep the record open for the Lane County Planning Commission until 5:00 p.m. on May 24, 2005. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 2005 Page 9 Public Hearing Ms. Colbath opened the floor to questions from staff. Ms. Levis asked staff to respond to the following questions: • Debbie Jeffries, related to E76. Ms Levis asked staff to verify that the ordinance is correct relating to documents referenced by Ms. Jeffries, and to correct the ordinance if needed. Ms. Levis suggested that staff contact Ms. Jeffries to ask for a written or e-mail submittal of her testimony. • Terry Connolly, had a concern about the ESEE not impacting commercial land. Ms. Levis asked if Mr. Connolly’s assertion was correct, and asked for an explanation of the difference between Mr. Connolly’s assertion and the document. Ms. Levis asked for an explanation regarding the footnotes related to commercial lands raised by Mr. Connolly, referring to the 1992 data. She asked why a more recent document was not used. • If Roxie Cuellar submitted information to the planning commissions on the residential land study on May 20, would there be sufficient time for staff to respond by June 6, 2005? • Lisa Warnes, related to E37. Ms. Warnes asked where the 100 foot setback requirement come from and why there aren’t additional setbacks? • Diane Wiley brought up the issue of removing the Riverfront Research Park from the list, or not adding additional protections. Ms. Levis asked if that option was available. She also asked if the RFRP master plan needed to be taken into account. • Richard Bushell, related to E48 B-2. Ms. Levis wanted to confirm that the site could not be taken out of the inventory. • Douglas Heer, related to E45 (South Shasta Loop). Ms. Levis asked how Mr. Heer’s request to trade one site for the one in the plan could be addressed and whether the site Mr. Heer offered for protection was in the inventory. • Dan Leahy, E66. Mr. Björklund confirmed that the site was within the City of Eugene. Ms. Levis asked staff to address the mistakes that Mr. Leahy brought up. • Ms. Levis asked for information related to the testimony that there was no input into the size of setbacks. Ms. Arkin said she appreciated the testimony about areas identified in the inventory that fed into our most valued riparian corridors, such as Amazon Creek and the WEW, particularly The Nature Conservancy (TNC). She urged staff to review the testimony, and consider giving the headwaters or prominent creeks feeding into those areas as much protection as the main resource itself. As an example, she said the headwaters of Amazon Creek should perhaps receive the same protection of 60 foot setbacks as required for Amazon Creek since they determined the downstream water quality. Ms. Arkin asked the following questions: • Mr. Biggs inquired about uplands, woodlands, and forests, and she did not understand if the Planning Commission was allowed to consider that or not. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 2005 Page 10 Public Hearing • Several people commented that when wetlands or riparian areas were within public lands, they should receive at least minimum protection. • Ms. Arkin said Mr. Colombe had asked about filling a portion of the slough. Mr. Björklund confirmed that there was no recommendation to fill waterways. • Ms. Arkin said there was a question about existing buildings legally permitted and asked staff to respond. • She asked for confirmation that many areas in River Road/Santa Clara, some of which were under City of Eugene jurisdiction, and others were under Lane County jurisdiction, did not have a storm water system. In response to Mr. Björklund, she said she meant either a storm water piped system, a storm water management plan, or both. She said particular attention needed to be paid to natural areas that might take up a lot of run off, to protect them, as they meander in and out of the city limits, and UGB. Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki commended Mr. Björklund for a good job. He said he remembered testifying 2 ½ years ago about this topic, and he thought there had been plenty of time for public input. He asked the following question: • Did the City of Eugene Building Division have a staff hydrologist who studied what happened when a house was built, a trench was dug, or a sewer installed above other property. He said those actions effected the hydrology of the property below, and asked how would that effect the Goal 5 work. Mr. Dignam observed that a speaker commented that this process had been rushed. He asked Mr. Björklund how long he had been working on the process. Mr. Björklund replied he had been working on the process since 1988, but noted that the bulk of the work on the recommendations took place within the last year. Mr. Dignam commented the Lane County Planning Commission did not feel that the process had been rushed, and certainly would not allow it to be rushed. He said the Commission would ensure that all of the issues were properly addressed. He wanted to have all of the questions raised by people with property located outside of the city limits and inside the UGB to have a specific response addressed back to the Planning Commission. He added that all who testified were entitled to have an answer if they had a specific question. Mr. Dignam quoted Mr. Björklund’s opening remarks, ”This is the balancing process which is Goal 5.” • How do we balance this? Mr. Dignam said the balancing process would be a key issue when the commission deliberated because Goal 5 was only one of the 21 goals, and he saw some potential conflict with other goals, including Goal 9, Economic Development and Goal 10, Housing. He said that although many people supported the recommendations, there were some comments re- lated to the impact of implementation of this measure on commercial and industrial lands, as well as impacts on land available for housing. He did not know how to balance the conflicting goals, MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 2005 Page 11 Public Hearing  and noted they would be the key issue the commission needed to undertake during deliberations. Mr. Belcher had several questions: • He asked for a response to the questions about differential protection for public lands. • What were the remaining options if actual errors in classification were discovered at this point? • What was the enforcement mechanism for the process? • Are there opportunities for either public acquisition or easements to mitigate financial impacts? • Was there a minimum protection for the areas or could all of the protection be removed by eco- nomic impacts? • Several people testified about a 20 foot culvert at Ayres Pond that precluded fish being able to reach the channel that had been designated as fish bearing? Ms. Colbath asked staff to respond to the following issues: • Several speakers expressed concern about communication between city departments, including PDD, PW, and POS. • Several speakers expressed concern about setbacks on public lands, especially water ways. • She wanted to see a comparison between the current setbacks for the UO RRP and the staff rec- ommendation. • She wanted more information on the testimony about Ascot Park having no buffer. Mr. Hledik asked the following questions: • Where in the plan or zoning ordinance was the exemption for built upon lots addressed, i.e., those lots that had a house that were within the setback? • How were the different stream and wetland categories developed? Mr. Becker asked the following question: • Was there a clear process if there was a correction that needed to be made to a wetland delinea- tion or riparian area that a land owner felt needed to be addressed? Ms. Colbath noted there were no more questions from the Eugene Planning Commission and no further comments from staff. She closed the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission. Mr. Dignam noted there were no more questions from the Lane County Planning Commission. He closed the meeting of the Lane County Planning Commission. MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 2005 Page 12 Public Hearing Ms. Colbath thanked the members of the public who attended the meeting, the commissioners and staff who attended and listened to the information. Ms. Colbath adjourned the meeting at 7:36 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2005\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc050412ph.doc MINUTES – Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 2005 Page 13 Public Hearing