HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/25/2002 Work Session
.
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
, THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2002
The city of Springfield council met in work session in the Jesse Maine Room, 225 Fifth Street,
Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, March 25,2002, at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Leiken, Councilors Fitch, Hatfield, Lundberg, Ralston and Simmons. Also
present were City Manager Michael Kelly, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Attorney Meg Kieran,
, Administrative Coordinator Julie Wilson, and members of the staff.
Councilor Ballew was absent (excused).
1. Proposed Ordinance Amending Springfield Municipal Code Industrial Pretreatment
Penalties.
.
Senior Environmental Services Technician Bill Hamann presented the staff report on this
issue. City of Springfield voters approved a new charter in November 2002, which no
longer limits the monetary value of civil and criminal penalties, which may be imposed
for violating provisions of the City Code. The City's previous charter limited both civil
and criminal penalties to a maximum of $500.00 per day including provisions pertaining
to IndustrialPretreatment. Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations 40CFR 403.8 (f) (1)
(vi) requires that the City have authority to seek or assess civil or criminal penalties for
pretreatment violations in at least the amount of$I,OOO.OO a day for each violation.
Sections 4.084 and 4.086 of the Springfield Municipal Code reflect the limitations of the
old charter and should be amended to reflect the federal requirement. Staff proposes to
increase the maximum penalty to $2,500 for civil or criminal penalties for pretreatment
violations.
Mr. Hamann said a public hearing is scheduled for April I st regarding revisions. Public
notice has been provided as appropriate. He said industries have also been notified of
the public hearing.
2. Flood Plain Issues - Thurston Area.
City Engineer Al Peroutka introduced this item and introduced Joe Weber, Natural
Hazards Specialist for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Mr.
Weber will provide information regarding floodplain issues. This work session is an
opportunity for the council to concentrate on questions and issues related to the
floodplain of the McKenzie River in the Thurston area. Mr. Weber will discuss accuracy
of the FEMA maps ofthe McKenzie River flood levels.
Development policies within the urban portion ofthe floodplain of the Willamette and
McKenzie Rivers have been brought into focus recently and the council has expressed a
desire to discuss the issues. This work session focuses on the Thurston area.
.
,City Co~nci1 Work Session Meeting Minutes
March 25, 2002
Page 2
.
Mr. Peroutka reviewed points discussed during the March 11, 2002 council meeting.
The table of "undeveloped and underdeveloped areas within river floodplain" in the
March 11 council briefing memorandum showed that the Thurston Area has little
additional acreage to be developed which is contained within the FEMA-mapped 100-
year floodplain. The area contains 19 acres of the 367 acres in the urban growth
boundary that were identified by staff as undeveloped or underdeveloped floodplain.
The mapping and breakdown ofthe acreage by zoning is shown in Figure I of the March
25 agenda item summary packet map. '
A major problem related to floodplain issues in the Thurston area has been the
discrepancy between the FEMA maps of the lOO-year floodplain for the area and the
reality ofthe flood extent during the 1996 flood, which was less than a 100-year flood.
The 1996 flood was approximately a 40-year flood event according to recorded flows at
the Vida gage, and was estimated to be around a 20-year event as it reached the Gateway
area, according to analysis recently completed by Poage Engineering. Some of the
discrepancy between predicted and actual flooding can be seen in Figures 2 and 3, which
focus on the FEMA-mapped floodplain in the Levi Landing Subdivision area and the
observations of the 1996 flood event in this area. As can be seen from the mapping, the
FEMA maps showed, for instance that the Levi Landing area was almost entirely outside
ofthe 100-year floodplain. The 1996 flood information, which was developed from
observations by city staff and residents, shows the 1996 flood covenng almost the entire
Levi Landing site.
.
Some of the flood flows that were experienced at the Vida gage in other past major
floods are much greater than the 1996 flows. For instance, while the 1996 flood peaked
at flows of 30,800 cubic feet per second (CFS), the 1942 flood peaked at 48,900 cfs and
the 1964 flood peaked at 57,400 cfs. For comparison, the post-dam 100-year flow at
Vida is 38,500 cfs and the post-dam 500-year flow at Vida is 53,300 cfs. So a flow of
the magnitude of the 1964 flood, ifit occurred now, would be greater than a 500-year
event. The effect of the dams on river flows, as was explained by Wade Stampe ofthe
Corps"is significant.
An excerpt from the March 11 council briefing memorandum was included in the March
25, 2002, agenda item packet. The council discussion this evening references some of
this information, therefore, a portion of this excerpt is being provided as reference, as
follows:
The 1996 flood experience played a large part in the controversy and analysis
regarding floodplain issues on the Levi Landing Subdivision (located at 69th and
Thurston Road) proposal. The Levi Landing area is within the urban growth
boundary and is almost entirely outside of the FEMA-mapped 100-year floodplain
boundary. Area residents, however, asserted that the area was subject to flooding,
was affected by an overflow of the McKenzie at the Gosler Revetment during the 1996
flood, and that development and filling of the property would cause greater risk of
flooding on surrounding properties.
.
The controversy surrounding the development led eventually to a requirement for the
dev,eloper's engineers (EGR Engineers) to restudy the flood hazards in this section of
the McKenzie River. The study included remodeling of the 100-year flood in this area
and used the information gatheredfrom the 1996flood and area residents to
determine new flood mappingfor the area. The study showed that 100-year flood
elevations in the Levi Landing area were actually going to be 2 to 3 feet higher than
.City COl,illcil Work Session Meeting Minutes
March 25,2002
Page 3
.
shown on FEMA mapping. The city had a peer review done of the study by CH2M
Hill, who concurred with the study results. The development movedforward after a
medical settlement of the appeals filed by surrounding property owners, that led to a
scaled back and modified development.
The Levi Landing study was the basis for the analysis performed by the Eagles Flight
Subdivision (located on 6{Jh Street north of Thurston Road) developer's engineers.
The extent of area studied for Levi Landing included the Eagles Flight area and so
the study results were applicable to this area.
The predictions of floodplain elevations and flooding extent are complicated by
constantly changing conditions in the river and surrounding land. One significant
feature that can affect predictedflooding, particularly along the McKenzie River; is
the presence and maintenance of revetments (armoredstream banks) along the rivers
edge.
The city is currently in discussions with the Army Corps of Engineers, Lane County
and area residents regarding two revetments along the McKenzie River, the Hart
Revetment, located east of Thurston, and the Gosler revetment, located near Levi
Landing.
.
The Hart Revetment was torn away this winter by McKenzie River flows. The Army
Corps of Engineers took no responsibility or action to prevent this from happening,
and in fact, the Corps and several other federal and state agencies are leaning
towards reducing reliance on revetments and allowing river meandering, for
environmental reasons. This revetment was in place during the 1996 flood and was
not over-topped by those flood flows. However, since it has been washed away and
significant farm land behind the revetment has eroded, the Army Corps of Engineers
has predicted that a similar flood to 1996 or even smaller floods would now overtop
the banks of the McKenzie and flow into Cedar Creek, or possibly into other
drainages, which could in turn affect urbanized land in Springfield.
The Gosler revetment, which was mentioned in the discussion of Levi Landing, was
over-topped during the 1996 flood, but only in an isolated section, which apparently
was a low, weak spot in the revetment. There has been discussion, but no consensus,
about repair of this section of revetment, and no agency has stepped up to pay the
cost of that work. If this revetment were allowed to deteriorate further, there would
be future impacts on flood patterns, which are not yet known. Again, the question of
the environmental effects of maintaining armored banks along the McKenzie is an
issue, particularly in regard to Endangered Species Act response.
The city's concerns about the McKenzie revetments revolve around the effects on the
urbanized area within the deterioration of the revetments. The loss of the revetments
could have at least two major impacts on the city: 1) the McKenzie will more
frequently overtop its banks and flow into Cedar Creek which could have a potential
impact on city storm water drainage to the Creekfrom the Thurston area; 2) the
McKenzie could actually eventually shift its main stem to new routes, including Cedar
Creek area, which could have a direct impact on urbanized areas.
.
During discussions with the Corps of Engineers, the city learned that the major flood
season for this year is past and therefore there is time to study and respond to the
potential threats caused by the revetment destruction. The Corps described one of
, City COllncil Work Session Meeting Minutes
March 25,2002
Page 4
.
their programs, called Advance Measures Investigations, which could assist the city
in studying and responding to this situation. Under this program, the city would need
to supply survey work and other information needed to analyze the situation. The
Corps of Engineers would then give the city technical assistance in determining the
level of threat to the urbanized area and in determining an appropriate response,
including any physical projects needed for protection of urban areas. The city would
be responsible for securing all easements and entry rights from private property
owners for installation of any project, and then, when a threat is imminent, the Corps
of Engineers could be called in, through the Governor's office, to construct the
project. City staff is proposing to spend an estimated $8,000 to extend our aerial
mapping eastward to the former Hart revetment area to obtain topography for Corps
analysis. Lane County has, as of now, identified no funds to assist with the project.
Mr. Peroutka said Mr. Weber has been reviewing the city flood insurance study and he
had comments to make about the McKenzie River flood insurance study.
Councilor Hatfield said the important issue at hand is the flood plain issue. He clarified
that council was not discussing the Eagles Flight request at this time. He said the
decision to deny the annexation for Eagles Flight was rescinded and the application is
status quo at this time. He said whatever discussion and policy changes the council
might make, would have no impact on the Eagles Flight application. The Eagles Flight
application was submitted in December. Whatever conditions the application must meet
for approval will have had to be in place when the application was originally submitted.
.
Councilor Hatfield said council is concerned with flood plain impacts on the urban area.
He said council does care about the rural neighbors, although, their focus and main
responsibility is related to protection of the urban area.
Mr. Weber provided council with a handout and reviewed the following issues in detail:
· Flood insurance study chronology.
· Countywide conversion - June 2, 1999
· Includes May 2, 1994 revisions to Lane County FIRM.
· Streams on FIRM.
· Reservoirs.
· Summary of discharges.
Mr. Weber briefly discussed the McKenzie River, USGS Gate No. 14162500,
near Vida. He said during 1996, peak discharges (cfs) for the flood in February
1996 was 30,900 (30 year event), November 1996flood was 23,300 (12 year
event). He said our area had a relatively significantflood in 1996. He said the
map shows an area that is not depicted as flood plain area, although, the area
did flood.
· Need for updating study.
Changes to hydrologic conditions.
Changes in hydraulic conditions.
Mr. Weber provided information regarding changes to and in hydrologic
conditions.
.
Mr. Weber discussed map calculations and provided a drawing on the chalkboard to
further explain calculations he was discussing. Topics Mr. Weber discussed included the
100-year flood plain area and Levi Landing. He referenced the middle cross section of
the drawing (on the chalk board) as the Levi Landing area. Mr. Weber said when a re-
,City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes
March 25, 2002
Page 5
.
.
.
survey was conducted, it appeared that the water surface went up approximately 2.5 feet.
He said a change in water surface elevation from the first and second study was 10 feet.
He said the increase factor was too much of a change between the cross sections. He
saic:i a lO-foot change is large. Mr. Weber said that there is a lO-foot change between the
mouth and the cross section area. He said wherever you have these problems, it will be
cumulative throughout the entire process.
Mr. Weber demonstrated, on the chalkboard drawing, his overview of the cumulative
change in water surface elevation between cross sections. He again said there could be
changes between many cross sections.
Mr. Weber discussed linear change ~etween cross sections.
Councilor Hatfield asked what causes autonomous changes in elevation. Mr. Weber
replied that it was a lack of cross sections. He said the cross sections were too far apart
in the original study. Mr. Weber said, typically, when studies are conducted, they are
limited with funding and things are spaced out. He said when you review the model,
look at the amount of change that is occurring, there would have been many warnings at
the cross sections, where there is large change in water surface elevation.
Mr. Weber referenced a section of the map that was redone and said about 5 or 6 cross-
sections were inserted. He discussed the result of an increase in water surface elevation
of a few feet and said the results would be cumulative. A 2- foot increase in one location
will carry throughout the model and cause a 2-foot increase in other areas.
Al Peroutka explained that Mr. Weber had not had a chance to thoroughly look at the
EGR Engineers study that was completed for Levi Landing. He said in that study, cross
sections were inserted into the referenced area. They used the .1996 flood information as
base flood elevation for a certain year flood. Using the base flood elevation, they then
interpreted from that information. Mr. Peroutka said Mr. Weber is concerned regarding
areas located further upstream. There could be cumulative problems that arise.
Mr. Weber said it would be beneficial to conduct a re-study, based on the fact that the
old study had changes reflecting between 5 - 10 feet in water surface elevation.
Councilor Simmons referenced the 1996 flood information. Mr. Weber said based on
the frequency curve in the flood insurance study, it could be a 30-year probability figure.
He said if you look at the 1983 aerial maps, compared to a map from 2002, we would see
a substantial increase of impervious surface. The runoff potential is significantly higher
today than it was at the time the original elevation study was conducted. The dam plays
a role in controlling that flood plain issue. Many homes along the Mohawk River did
flood. He said the water was 4 feet high in some homes.
Councilor Simmons discussed the Mohawk area. He said some homes had substantial
flooding in their homes. He discussed inconsistencies depicted on the map. He further
discussed the impact to homeowners. Mr. Weber discussed computed water surface
elevations. He said the model he discussed understates actual information.
Councilor Hatfield noted the following:
· Fill impact. We need to investigate the impact offill in the floodplain and what
impact that has on neighboring properties and their wells.
,City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes
March 25,2002
Page 6
.
. Breaches in the Hart and Gosler revetment. What impact that has on hydrology,
predominantly of the north branch of Cedar Creek and how that could cause
backpressure on the southern branch, which in fact could stop up the storm water
drainage system in the Thurston area. Councilor Hatfield said the streets in that area
have previously been under 18 inches of water. He said this has happened about 3 or
4 times in the past. He said the Public Works Department has placed a high-water
sign in the area, on several occasions, because the water does not drain through the
storm water system. He said this occurs under normal conditions. As discussed at
previous meetings, the Hart revetment, which is east of the UGB did not flood
during the 1996 flood. He said now that the revetment has been torn away, it would
flood during a 30-year flood event. He said the McKenzie River could flood into the
north branch of Cedar Creek. He questioned the impact this would have on the
storm drainage system in Springfield and/or what if the Gosler revetment was to
flood. He said there is a channel that goes from the Gosler revetment right into what
is now Levi Landing. It would get cut off by the south bank of Cedar Creek in the
process. It depends on how much water there is. We need to consider how that
would impair the ability of the storm water system to drain (Thurston area) at that
time.
. As a city, we need to draw the line and protect the urban area, should the COE,
because of 4-D ruling, ESA, or other reasons, choose not to re-channel the
McKenzie and allow it greater freedom to meander.
.
Councilor Hatfield said the above issues impact county and city residents as well as
infrastructure. We need to begin to look at how or what policies are needed to mitigate
impact and protect the urban area from potential threats. We have not yet evaluated how
- real those threats are. The Army COE has basically decided it was highly unlikely that
the McKenzie River will change, shift south into the Cedar Creek basin.
Councilor Hatfield discussed the 1996 flood, in which Cedar Creek flowed upstream,
where the hydraulic pressure forced Cedar Creek the other way, which is somewhat
unnatural. He asked how the storm water system that drains Thurston Hills to Thurston
flatlands functions, if in fact, Cedar Creek can't take that discharge and deposits it into
the McKenzie River downstream. He said those are questions that have been surfacing
over the past three years or so. With revetment breaches, they have taken a higher
priority because there is potentially some serious risk of property damage in the
urbanized area. Ifwe look at a 100-year flood being 3-5 feet higher than we think it is,
given where the water was in 1996, at a 30-year flood, we are talking about a substantial
amount of Thurston being under water.
Mr. Weber said the changes to the map would be cumulative.
Councilor Fitch asked for verification from Mr. Weber that his opinion was that the city
is working from a 1986 study that is inaccurate and needs to be redone. Mr. Weber
responded that (FEMA) did not look at the output coming out of this and realized that we
really need to have a lot more cross sections then we had. Because of the sequence of
the grading into the river, the cross sections were too far apart. They could have looked
at it and could have researched some options (insert some cross sections in between any
two cross sections).
.
. City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes
March 25,2002
Page 7
.
Councilor Fitch asked ML Weber, in his opinion, what it would take to complete the
modeling correctly. Mr. Weber said they might need to restudy areas. Mr. Weber said
FEMA might pay for a formal study and new official maps. He said Congress has
promised his agency an increased budget.
Councilor Simmons said we need a good sound database to work from if the study is
completed again.
Mr. Weber provided detailed information and dialogue with the council regarding the
potential flooding problems and options for a restudy.
Councilor Simmons further discussed hydrology of the river.
Mr. Peroutka referenced information provided by Mr. Weber and said the information is
very new. He would like to allow Mr. Weber more time to review the information. Mr.
Weber responded to comments made by Mr. Peroutka.
City Attorney Joe Leahy said many folks are concerned about this issue. He said we
should not be in a position where we provide preliminary observations based on
information provided today. He suggested that the city provide Mr. Weber ample time
t6 consider the information before responding with a definitive answer regarding this
issue. He said this issue is important to people whom own property, and those impacted
by the river. Mr. Weber said given the problems with the existing model, changes in
existing water surface elevation between cross sections is reason alone to conduct a new
study.
.
Councilor Lundberg said flood plain issues would impact development in the
community. She would like to conclude the flood plain (work sessions) with some sense
of confidence and a clear sense that council is moving forward. She said we need
accurate information as we move forward. Al Peroutka said we could approach this
issue from different levels. One approach would be for new model/standpoint, with new
cross sections, and to ask the COE for new information on dam operations. Other
options might include running a new model and let it calculate with cross sections
entered to see the results/outcome.
Councilor Hatfield discussed the referenced errors in cross sections. He suggested we
identify the areas where cross section information is incorrect and use that as a starting
point for a restudy. That first cross section error might be noted at 42nd Street. The maps
could also be inaccurate in other areas.
Mr. Weber provided information regarding processing of current records on microfiche,
scanning of information, options for information in digital format, and the ability to
make notation on a paper copy of cross section areas that need to be reviewed.
Councilor Hatfield said staff should make that effort. He said we need to understand
what is going on with the maps so reasonable decisions can be made. City staff are
proposing to spend an estimated $8,000 to extend aerial mapping eastward, from where
we already have it, up to Hendricks Bridge. He said we need to do this so that we can
have an understanding of what happens when the McKenzie River floods the Matthews
property and hits Cedar Creek, at the former Hart revetment area. He supported this
effort.
.
. City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes
March 25,2002
Page 8
.
Councilor Simmons referenced the Army Corps general reconnaissance study. He
understood they were willing to go forward with this type of study. Al Peroutka
provided information regarding the general reconnaissance study.
The group further discussed the referenced errors in cross sections and the comment that
the fIrst cross section error may be noted at 42nd Street, although, the study would need
to go from the confluence, back to the UGB, in Thurston.
Mr. Weber said he checked the mapsand there is a problem at the confluence. He said
there are 3 or 4 cross sections that have a change of 5 feet or more. Councilor Hatfield
said there was this issue as well as $8,000 for the aerial mapping study. He said we need
to do both. Staff received authorization to move forward.
Councilor Simmons asked what the impact is to homeowners that have built homes in
this area, based on existing data. Insurance issues were discussed. Mr. Weber said for
insurance purposes, if the homeowner maintains current mortgage and keeps the
insurance policy valid, they would be grandfathered in as long as the policy does not
lapse. Councilor Simmons discussed errors and omission information.
Council provided direction to authorize expenditures up to $8,000 for an aerial survey.
The council also directed staff to immediately begin work on recoding the data and look
at the map cross-sections.
.
Councilor Fitch said we have had many citizens interested/involved in this issue. She
suggested staff keep a list of interested parties so that everyone can remain
informed/updated as appropriate.
Greg Mott provided information regarding moratorium law application.
Mike Kelly noted that Eagles Flight may come back for reconsideration within the next
few months and the Peace Health annexation request is scheduled for April 15.
Councilor Hatfield said the two developments are very different. He said Eagles Flight
has an approved subdivision plot. We are annexing that, subject to an approved
subdivision. If approved, we will annex Peace Health without any approved master plan
or site plan. He briefly discussed the difference between the two projects.
Councilor Fitch discussed Eagles Flight request. Mike Kelly clarified information
regarding flood plain development and council's intent to allow (or not allow)
reasonable flood plain development.
Councilor Simmons said if council has some questions regarding the validity of data
available, developers should be informed of the potential for flooding, as appropriate.
They need to be aware of the potential and risk for flooding. This would allow
developers the opportunity to consider delay of development until good data/facts are
available.
Cynthia Pappas said council will schedule a public hearing on April 8, 2002, at 7:00
p.m., in the Council Meeting Room. Meeting notices will be mailed out tomorrow.
Members of the public may speak to the council regarding issues of concern, issues that
council needs to be aware of, etc.
.
3. Proposed Springfield Development Code Amendments.
. City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes
March 25,2002
Page 9
.
Gary Karp presented the staff report on this issue. Mr. Karp explained that staff is
requesting feedback and direction upon review of the proposed amendments.
The issue being presented is the amendment ofthe Springfield Development Code
(SDC) to comply with Federal regulations: I) the Endangered Species Act; 2) the Clean
Water Act; and 3) the Safe Drinking Water Act. This project is an element of the City's
Overall response to the Endangered Species Act 4( d) Rule that the City Council
reviewed and approved last year.
The purpose ofthis Work Session is for staff to:
1. Present the relationship of the proposed amendments to the City's overall ESA
Compliance Strategy and other applicable Federal regulations.
2. Provide an overview of the proposed amendments and identify key issues for City
Council consideration.
3. Introduce the Public Works' Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual, a
document referenced in the proposed amendments.
4. Discuss the possible consequences of the recent Land Use Board of Appeals remand
of an appeal of Eugene's newly adopted land use code.
.
A second City Council Work Session is scheduled on April 15 where a more detailed
discussion of the proposed amendments will take place.
Mr. Karp provided a slide/overhead presentation on this subject.
He reviewed the following points:
.
Project background.
Phase I - Interim development standards and procedures.
Phase 2 - Storm water Management System policies.
Phase 3 - Erosion control and Riparian Protection overlay district.
Phase 4 - Willamette Greenway overlay district, Hillside Development overlay
district, tree felling and Urban Forest plan.
Dates for future work session meetings, workshops, public hearings, etc.
.
.
.
.
.
Mr. Karp reviewed the executive summary, Agenda Item Summary attachment 2-2. The
following information was reviewed:
Article I General Provisions.
Article 2 Definitions.
Article 31 Minimum Development Standards and Site Plan Review Standards.
Article 32 Public and Private Improvements.
Article 34 Partition Standards.
Article 35 Subdivision Standards.
Mr. Karp reviewed maps placed on the wall.
.
. City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes
March 25,2002
Page 10
.
City Attorney Meg Kieran provided detailed information regarding Goal 5. She said
Springfield does not currently have adopted acknowledged inventory Goal 5 resources
except for wetlands. We are required to have made every effort possible to comply with
Goal 5. At some point we will have an adopted inventory, and there will be overlap
between the resources that we are discussing to bring us into compliance with federal
law and the resources that we anticipate will be adopted as part of the Goal 5 resources.
Councilor Simmons cautioned about adopting standards without adequate study. He
referenced a State Court ruling against Eugene because they did not have an adequate
analysis of their "ditch" ordinance. He was not talking about Goal 5 or Goal 6. He said
if we adopt riparian standards that are not of science-based process, someone may
challenge in Federal Court and argue that we are not complying with Rule 4D. City
Attorney Joe Leahy said between planning staff and the Environmental Services
Division (ESD), we will have prepared findings that will support this.
Mr. Karp said this was a fIrst-step approach toward seeking some protection. Staff will
come back with riparian overlay district next year. This will have some scientific study
to it.
Councilor Simmons said the charge is not sufficient to meet the existing 4D Rule
component. Mr. Karp said this is a first attempt to do something. When the city goes to
submit an overall compliance package, they want to submit the big package, not parts of
the proposal package. Staff is attempting an incremental approach.
.
Joe Leahy asked if council would like staff to "drop back and recycle this." Currently
resources are limited. Staff is hoping to demonstrate that we are working on this issue,
attempting to meet the goal. He said if this is not council direction this would be the
time to indicate this.
Fred Simmons said overall things are headed in the right direction, the riparian habitat
portion needs to be a broader scope. He said the city does not have resources to do
everything we need to do. He suggested use of Federal Standards/definition.
City Planner Mel Oberst said we are all headed in the same direction. Initially staff felt
the need to take small steps in order to get some protection measures on the books,
consistent with something that was a known factor. He referenced state setbacks of 75
and 50 feet. He said for future phases (riparian ordinance) staff could bring in more
science-based information.
Mayor Leiken said the facts raised by Councilor Simmons are important.
Councilor Simmons noted the fact that 4d rules have been adopted.
Councilor Lundberg said she supported moving forward.
Gary Karp discussed a Ballot Measure 56 mailing notice regarding property value, etc.
.
Councilor Fitch supported current direction of staff. Staff answered questions from
Councilor Fitch regarding section 5.2, amended phasing/facilitated workshop on March
7. It was requested that language be corrected so that it does not reflect that this meeting
was a developer and contractor workshop. This might imply that they (developers)
bought off on a facilitated workshop, if they were not in attendance.
.
.
.
. City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes
March 25, 2002
Page 11
Councilor Ralston was happy with staff direction and supported moving forward.
Councilor Simmons said to move forward.
Al Peroutka provided an overhead presentation regarding reviewed design standards.
Al Peroutka defined property owner responsibilities.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
'"
Minutes Recorder - Julie Wilson