Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10th Avenue May 10, 2010 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Heidi Beierle, Chair; Jonathan Belcher, Lisa Warnes, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, William Randall, Members; Lisa Gardner, Alissa Hansen, Terri Harding, Heather O’Donnell, Patricia Thomas, Carolyn Weiss, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Neil Bjorklund, Parks and Open Space; Rene Kane, City Managers Office; Jeff Krueger, Lane Council of Governments (LCOG); Tanja Janssen, Kevin Matthews, Dana Maher, Jared Mason-Gere, Majeska Seese-Green, visitors. ABSENT: Jeffery Mills, Vice Chair. I. PUBLIC COMMENT II. WILLAMETTE RIVER OPEN SPACE VISION AND ACTION PLAN Staff: Jeff Krueger, Lane Council of Governments, 541-682-4122 III. ENVISION EUGENE Staff: Heather O’Donnell, 541-682-5488 IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 2010 Page 1  MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10th Avenue May 10, 2010 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Heidi Beierle, Chair; Jonathan Belcher, Lisa Warnes, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, William Randall, Members; Lisa Gardner, Alissa Hansen, Terri Harding, Heather O’Donnell, Patricia Thomas, Carolyn Weiss, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Neil Bjorklund, Parks and Open Space; Rene Kane, City Managers Office; Jeff Krueger, Lane Council of Governments (LCOG); Tanja Janssen, Kevin Matthews, Dana Maher, Jared Mason-Gere, Majeska Seese-Green, visitors. ABSENT: Jeffery Mills, Vice Chair. Ms. Beierle convened the meeting. She noted the agenda had been modified. She called for public comment. I. PUBLIC COMMENT Kevin Matthews, P.O. Box 1588, said the Willamette River planning was important to the community and it was good to see it moving forward and. He was disappointed the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) site was being planned without a scientific or environmental basis. The Envision Eugene process did not permit wasting time. Those who had complained about the first Envision Eugene meeting said it did not reach the technical level and scope to be respectful of the community. He asked the Planning Commission and Planning Department to take advantage of community knowledge. II. AGENDA PACKET FORMAT Mr. Duncan thought packets were supposed to be provided to Planning Commissioners by the Thursday preceding meetings, but he did not see his until arriving at his office this morning, which did not provide him sufficient time to properly review the documents for today’s discussions. He understood the information on the Willamette project showed up late Friday afternoon, after he had left the office. It was difficult for him to be an effective Planning Commissioner if he did not receive information in advance of meetings. The commission needed to address receiving the packets in a more timely way. Ms. Warnes was not able to open files sent electronically because they were not formatted in Word. Her computer could not download recent Adobe files. III. WILLAMETTE RIVER OPEN SPACE VISION AND ACTION PLAN MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 2010 Page 2 Jeff Krueger, Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) represented approximately fifteen partners who had worked to develop the Willamette River Open Space Vision and Action Plan during the last nine months. He offered a PowerPoint presentation entitled Willamette River Open Space Vision and Action Plan—An Open Space Vision for the Willamette River in and around Eugene-Springfield, Oregon, a copy of which was included in the agenda packet for today’s meeting. He introduced Neil Bjorklund, lead staff from the City of Eugene. Mr. Belcher said this was a great document and offered several suggestions to improve it. He said it was difficult to tell which jurisdiction projects were proposed for. He noted the land acquisition listing on page 37 appeared to provide a project ranking and should be clarified. He asked if global warming impacts of increased rainfall and decreased snow pack had been considered in the ability to manage water flows through fish habitat. Mr. Krueger said The Nature Conservancy and the Army Corps of Engineers were developing a sustainable rivers project that would include a strategy for modifying dam releases. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife managed a salmon/trout enhancement program that allowed diversion through Delta Ponds. Mr. Krueger agreed that the numbering system on the priority land acquisition table could be interpreted to indicate ranking and agreed to clarify. Mr. Randall concurred the plan was a good document. He asked if there was a way to incorporate how land acquisition priorities might affect Envision Eugene and Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment (ECLA) processes. Mr. Krueger opined the impacts would be minimal. Many of the lands acquired would be in the floodway, floodplain, or on steep slopes and not developable. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Randall, moved that the Planning Commission endorse the plan and recommend that the City Council endorse the Willamette River Open Space Vision and Action Plan. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. The Planning Commission took a brief break. IV. ENVISION EUGENE Ms. Harding said the Envision Eugene kick off meeting took place on May 4, 2010. The comments were being compiled and would be posted on the website. The next meeting was scheduled for May 26. She solicited feedback from commissioners regarding their experiences at the tables at which they participated. Ms. Warnes said it was similar to the Chadwick sessions. After the meeting, she received many e-mails from participants who were unhappy about the content, claiming it was not substantive enough. People wanted to see more maps and graphs. People did not understand that it was intended as a listening session. Many people thought they had wasted their time. The group discussion ranged from talking about forgetting about being environmentalists within the urban growth boundary (UGB) to preserving the UGB. Infill compatibility, efficiency and not expanding the UGB were big issues. While some people supported smaller lots, others wanted to have lots that were large enough to grow food for the neighborhood. Mr. Randall had gone into the meeting thinking it was a big picture start that would become more focused MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 2010 Page 3 over time, and he thought the people at his table felt that way too. The group talked about a range of issues from efficiency standards to smaller lots, denser or more spread out development. The general consensus was that there would need to be some of both done. The people were generally pretty excited about the process. One person commented he was in favor of 3,700 square foot lots but would not want to live on one. Mr. Randall opined this comment was representative of our culture and it would be necessary to educate or overcome that perspective as the community moved forward. Mr. Hledik said the group at his table was fairly sophisticated in their knowledge of planning activities in the City. There were concerns ranging from maintaining open space while at the same time not stretching the UGB unnecessarily. The question of “Do we really have to grow?” needed to be addressed through legal or policy means at the beginning of the process. Ms. Gardner said it was not a question of should we grow or not grow, but the City had a requirement from the state to plan for 20 years of population and employment growth. The City’s projected growth rate over 20 years was expected to be .9 percent annually. Mr. Belcher said comments at the meeting and letters to the editor reflected people thought this was an impossible task in the time allowed. He said the structure of the first meeting was too loose and did not allow for focusing on specific issues. There was a failure that information was only captured on 3x5 cards. The real discussion occurred afterwards and there was no evidence that the real discussion was captured or given to staff. There was support in his group for a co-housing Planned Unit Development (PUD) model for some future growth. He was surprised there had been no discussion on the question of “Do we really have to grow?” at the three tables he worked with. Staff had an impossible task before it. He would request that the commission raise the short timeline issue with the City Council. Shawn Boles, who had been active in the development of the Growth Management Study expressed frustration that the study evolved into policies that did nothing. He hoped the current effort would result in a clear mandate for the future. There was support in the group for maintaining the option of community supported agriculture (CSA’s) including growing out along travel corridors and leaving fingers of agriculture and natural land between the growth patterns. Mr. Belcher did not think there was a good understanding of the legal ramifications of everything the commission and City were trying to accomplish. Nor did he think there was a good understanding of the need for any proposal to be economically feasible. Ideas presented were aspirational but may be well grounded. Ms. Warnes supported sending a message to City Council about the project timeline being too short. She was concerned today’s Planning Commission meeting was not widely publicized. She was disappointed that climate change was not factored into the projections. Ms. Beierle was pleased with the turnout. She shared the following comments from people at her table. They were unsure how their feedback was being captured and whether they would see it again. Politicians and environmentalists polarized arguments and we should work together. Did the proposals mean that there would be no new people coming into town or the UGB should not be expanded? How would solar access be addressed? There was an interest in preserving forest and agricultural land outside the UGB and not growing into those lands. The Willamette Oaks/Good Pasture Island proposal was cited as an example of inappropriate density. What was the tolerance for a mixed use area being taller? There was concern with building in the floodplain and prohibiting access to the river. There was concern about healthy life styles and transportation activity access to local food. Ms. Harding said the information presented at the kickoff meeting was intended to be at a level that was understandable to people who were new to the process. There were many people in attendance who were very familiar with land use planning and have spent much time on committees and commissions to help MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 2010 Page 4 advance the growth management policies. There were other components of public involvement that people would be able to participate in. She reviewed new information that had been placed on the website since the meeting and what staff planned to do for the next public meeting. Mr. Hledik said for a first time meeting, the meeting achieved exactly what was desired. Other opportunities would be provided for public participation. Ms. Gardner emphasized the need to continue to provide a variety of opportunities for people to participate at a level with which they felt comfortable. Ms. O'Donnell offered a staff report on efficiency strategies. She distributed and reviewed the following documents: • Attachment A—Existing land Use Efficiency Measures Utilized in City of Eugene. • Attachment B—Potential Lane Use Efficiency Measures. • Attachment D—Preliminary Efficiency Measures Analysis. Ms. O'Donnell asked for feedback from commissioners on additional efficiency measures. Mr. Duncan thought the questionnaire was geared primarily to how to achieve small goals, but did not look at what land uses already existed and whether there were ways to more efficiently use existing lands. The questionnaire did not provide recognition of how efficiencies could be accomplished in 20 years. The cultural change required to achieve the efficiency measures was a slow process and encouraging people to live in more compactly developed areas would take a long time. He was concerned radical changes would push more growth to Junction City, Veneta, and other rural areas. This information was not reflected in the questionnaire. Commissioners shared their suggestions for achieving the efficiency measures and maintaining balance in the community. V. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff There were no other items from staff. B. Other Items from Commission Mr. Belcher requested ten minutes at the next Planning Commission meeting to discuss sending a motion to City Council about the Envision Eugene timeline. There was consensus to support Mr. Belcher’s request. The meeting adjourned at 1:35 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 2010 Page 5