Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue June 12, 2006 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, John Lawless, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio; Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Neil Björklund, Ann Siegenthaler, Planning and Development Department; Charles Biggs, Rob Handy, guests. ABSENT: Rick Duncan, Vice President. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. STATUS REPORT: SOUTH RIDGELINE HABITAT STUDY Staff: Neil Björklund, 682-5507; Ann Siegenthaler, 682-5451 II. PREPARATION FOR JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL Staff: Kurt Yeiter, 682-8379 III. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 1  Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue June 12, 2006 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Mitzi Colbath, President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, John Lawless, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio; Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Neil Björklund, Ann Siegenthaler, Planning and Development Department; Charles Biggs, Rob Handy, guests. ABSENT: Rick Duncan, Vice President. Ms. Colbath convened the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission at 11:30 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There was no one wishing to address the Planning Commission. I. STATUS REPORT: SOUTH RIDGELINE HABITAT STUDY Mr. Björklund provided an update on the Study progress, using a map of the study area entitled, 2006 South Ridgeline Habitat Study Proposed Study Area as a resource. He said Salix Associates, a consulting firm of botanists, biologists and other natural resources professionals was hired in early May to conduct the field and habitat inventories in Oregon, and had senior-level scientists conducting the inventory work in the field. Field work began in late May and was expected to be completed in early July. Planning Division staff was working closely with the consultant and City of Eugene Public Works staff to address concerns and coordination issues related to fire safety and City requirements for mowing undeveloped areas. Mr. Björklund said approximately 100 property owners, out of a total of 770, had granted permission for access to conduct on-site studies. The sites for which access had been granted were two to three acres or less. Permission was not granted from larger property owners, and alternative survey methods, including viewing from roads and aerial views, were being utilized for those sites. Mr. Lawless asked what process was used to solicit input from private property owners who had not responded to requests for access. Mr. Björklund explained that staff had prepared guidelines for owners and others to submit information about specific sites and that the point of the guidelines was to provide property owners information to ensure accurate, useful information was submitted. He added that no documentation submitted would be disposed of. A companion document to the study report consisting of a compilation of all citizen submitted information would be prepared and available to the public. In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Björklund said the permission rate of approximately 13 or 14 MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 1 percent of property owners, was somewhat higher than the 10 percent response received on the Eugene Local Wetlands Inventory work. However, the percentage of acres for the South Ridgeline Habitat Study was below that for the Local Wetlands Inventory work. Mr. Björklund said the consultant’s work would include: • Mapping the entire study area through aerial photo analysis. • Using a standardized methodology, assigning each recognizable habitat patch to one of several categories of habitat types. • Confirmation of photo analysis from ground surveys that would provide a reference for photo analysis of inaccessible sites. • Review of privately conducted and submitted survey work included in public records. Ms. Siegenthaler said the guidelines were important particularly for properties with tree canopy cover that concealed other habitat features below. In response to Mr. Hledik, Mr. Björklund said staff would be bringing the broadest range of options; including conservation incentives, education, acquisition, and regulatory programs, back to the Planning Commission for consideration. Mr. Björklund said two fundamental questions would be addressed next winter: • The inventory report would provide information on the ecological value of the areas, but not social values or what the community valued most. • The social piece would be part of the policy discussion, which could be more of a driver than the ecological values. In response to Mr. Belcher, Mr. Björklund said nothing had been submitted to date from the Citizens’ Nature Project (CNP), while Kevin Matthews had attended a recent workshop. Mr. Björklund said CNP Goal 5 work, although in the Goal 5 files, would not be automatically rolled over into the current project. Mr. Björklund said he had advised Mr. Matthews the City would accept the work if so requested. He noted that not all of the CNP work would apply to the current project. In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Björklund said testimony or other information submitted for Goal 5 would need to be submitted again. He noted that this was because the testimony and information was over five years old, and may be dated and/or no longer valid. Ms. Siegenthaler reviewed the citizen involvement process used to notify the public for the March 30 and June 7, 2006 workshops. She discussed the concerns shared by the 75 people who attended the workshop March 30 workshop. In response to Mr. Belcher, she added that one person attended the June 7, 2006 workshop, while several people called asking for information on the guidelines. Mr. Björklund said one comment received at the workshop came from a disgruntled person who challenged a staff statement regarding the cost of conducting the inventory. He said the cost of the project in Fiscal Year 2005-2006 was 0.1 percent of the City of Eugene’s general fund operating budget, or about $1.50 for the average property owner. Mr. Björklund expected the inventory work to be completed in July 2006, after which a draft map and narrative report would be prepared. Additionally, all of the citizen submitted information MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 2 would be incorporated into a parallel document. A public workshop would be held to share that information prior to preparation of the final document. Mr. Björklund said a conscious choice about including regulations as part of the recommendations would be made to determine whether the Goal 5 process would be required. In response to Mr. Hledik, Mr. Björklund said the project consultants, Salix and Associates, was a Eugene based firm known throughout the state for its cutting edge inventory work. Responding to Mr. Belcher, Mr. Björklund said all types of habitat were being looked at, but the main categories were conifer, mixed conifer, oak woodland, oak savannah, upland prairie, rock outcrops, and Willamette Valley ponderosa pines. Mr. Björklund added there was a target list of wildlife species including the red legged frog, and the pileated woodpecker, that had been used in developing the inventory protocol. He added that a list of rare plant species would be surveyed for on any site where onsite work was conducted. Additionally, a protocol had been developed for identifying suitable habitat for rare species on those sites requiring offsite study. Following a brief discussion, there was consensus that staff should return after the next workshop, tentatively scheduled for October or November. II. PREPARATION FOR JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL Mr. Yeiter distributed a packet of email communications from staff, Planning Commissioners, City Councilors, and members of the public, and facilitated a discussion about a joint meeting with the City Council. Ms. Muir said the request for one full time equivalent (FTE) plus $50,000 from the City Manager’s budget had moved through the Budget Committee. The commission’s request for an additional fte and $20,000 would be addressed by the City Council. She added the neighborhood groups were asking the City Council to support the requests. In response to Ms. Colbath, the commissioners supported her offer to represent the Planning Commission at tonight’s City Council meeting. Mr. Yeiter said staff had gotten clarity from Councilor Bettman regarding Opportunity Siting. Her view was more limited than staff had understood. She recommended a site controlled by the City of Eugene, consisting of mainly residential rather than mixed use, should be pursued as a learning experience to determine how it might work. Mr. Hledik asked if there was a presupposition towards an obvious site in the City’s inventory, and if the City of Eugene had the financial capacity to conduct market and feasibility analysis for a demonstration project. Mr. Sullivan said various sites, including the Willakenzie School site, Willow Creek site, and the County Farm site in the Chad area, had been acquired for the housing program, and needed to be developed in accordance with the affordable housing acquisition funding. He added the concept of opportunity sites had been called out in the RFP for the Sears site. Mr. Lawless reported he had talked with Councilor Bettman who had indicated an interest in a sizeable housing project upward of 200 units that did not contain commercial uses. He said a MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 3 mixed use component in a demonstration project provided an opportunity to include neighborhood association participation which was essential in identifying potential sites. Ms. Muir cautioned commissioners regarding discussing specific addresses. Staff had been spending significant time defending against rumor, suspicion and mistrust on the projects, where there had been neither public involvement nor science behind determining the criteria. Mr. Belcher understood although the concept had come from Councilor Bettman, she was one of nine councilors and mayor. He added it was premature to craft a decision around what one councilor was saying. Mr. Lawless reviewed the June 10, 2006 email he had sent to commissioners and staff, subject “opportunity siting display at planning dept.”, a copy of which was included in Mr. Yeiter’s earlier distribution. He facilitated a discussion on the three avenues he had described in the communication: • Avenue 1—Identification of a city owned or potentially easily acquired property that was relatively unencumbered for a pilot project. • Avenue 2—Identification of other sites that may or may not be city owned or easily acquired, identified by the impacted neighborhood association as an opportunity site candidate. • Avenue 3—Development proposals that were put forth directly by the private sector as potential Opportunity Sites that may qualify for some level of public assistance if they met specified criteria. Mr. Belcher a specific project should be identified, while at the same time identifying criteria and potential locations for general success in multiple locations throughout the city. Mr. Carroll concurred with Mr. Belcher, especially if working through a specific site served as a focus for public comment and concern. He opined specificity from Council Bettman should not deter the Planning Commission from continuing to define the concept. He agreed using the process as a learning tool was a good idea. Mr. Hledik asked if Avenue 2 was necessary, in that a prior adopted commission motion started with a small demonstration project. He suggested that Avenue 3 provided an opportunity to develop a process that would be the most beneficial and provide best use of available uses from both the private and public sectors. Mr. Lawless said a more guided path would more truly engage the mixed use centers and impacted neighborhoods, providing a more inclusive process rather than fragmenting public participation. He added that all neighborhoods should be required to identify suitable sites. In response to Mr. Hledik, Mr. Yeiter explained funding currently available would be sufficient to conduct a focused study on a couple of sites during the next year. In response to Mr. Belcher, Mr. Sullivan said there were over a dozen parties that had expressed an interest in the Sears site, but it was unknown at this time which of those parties would actually respond to the RFP. He added that the 3/8 acre site, although well located, had limitations, and could not accommodate 200 residential units. Ms. Colbath opined that Avenue 3 would be more suitable than Avenue 2, adding that Avenue 2 MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 4 would provide the most comprehensive project in the long term. Mr. Yeiter said the studies supported Avenues 1 and 2, while Avenue 3 was dependent upon private sector interest that was out of the City’s control. Ms. Muir said the commission should remain open to a broad range of ideas, noting that additional resources in the form of grants, other staffing options, and other development tools may be available. She asked what the City needed to bring to the table to bring in private sector participation. She said the market analysis component was important. Mr. Belcher said it was important to move for success with this process to preclude needing to adjust the urban growth boundary in the future. Mr. Carroll said while it was important to look at publicly owned sites, the City should not shy away from privately owned sites. He cautioned about talking about downtown to the exclusion of other areas. Addressing the Planning Commission’s discussion regarding budget concerns, Ms. Muir said the opportunity siting proposal submitted for the budget was a broad perspective. She felt it was important to get policy direction from the City Council to provide a framework to move forward with opportunity siting. Mr. Belcher suggested that the Growth Management Study goals needed to be reaffirmed, because so much has happened since they were adopted, and may no longer reflect the community standards. Mr. Hledik proposed identifying a project that could be successfully completed in one year to demonstrate to the City Council what could be accomplished. Mr. Hudspeth concurred with Mr. Hledik, and acknowledged that it was important to provide opportunities for private enterprise to participate. He added that the Planning Commission should focus on policy rather than focusing on timelines and dollar amounts. Ms. Colbath noted consensus to identify a project that could be successfully completed in one year. Mr. Yeiter said he would bring options back to the Planning Commission following the City Council’s budget decisions tonight. Mr. Nystrom reviewed the commission’s schedule, adding that he would confirm the dates via email. III. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff Ms. Muir suggested the commission could hold a retreat that would serve as a process session. Ms. Colbath noted consensus for a Planning Commission retreat. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 5 Ms. Muir said staff would send out possible dates to commissioners. Mr. Yeiter said tonight’s City Council agenda included a joint meeting with the Lane Transit District (LTD) that would include discussions about the EmX and Walnut Station. Additionally, LTD would ask the City Council to identify a process to choose another corridor for planning. In response to Mr. Belcher, Mr. Yeiter said a consultant had been selected for the code amendments update, and the public outreach should start this summer. In response to Mr. Hledik, Mr. Nystrom said the City Council would be looking at potential action on the stormwater standards recently reviewed by the Planning Commission. He said related areas included water quality protected waterways that would be reviewed by a Public Works Department Advisory Committee. B. Other Items from Commission Mr. Lawless asked staff to track down a letter of support for work completed by University of Oregon students from the Fairmount neighbors. Mr. Sullivan said the Sears RFP closed on August 15, 2006. He said other downtown project included occupancy of the Tate Condominiums in July. He added that ground breaking on 111 units of mixed income housing on .9 of an acre next to the Woodmen of the World (WOW) Hall would take place on September 15, 2006. In response to Mr. Lawless, Mr. Nystrom did not know the effective date of implementation of the stormwater standards. Ms. Colbath adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:10 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2006\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc060612.doc MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Page 6