Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/15/2002 Work Session . MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL . HELD ON MONDAY, APRIL 15, 2002 The Springfield City Council met in work session on Monday, April 15, 2002 at Springfield City Hall, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Jesse Maine Meeting Room at 6:01p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken, and Councilors Ballew, Fitch, Hatfield, Lundberg, Ralston and Simmons. Also present were City Manager Mike Kelly, Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Kim Krebs, and members of staff. 1. Flood Plain Issues - Glenwood and General Discussion. City Engineer AlPeroutka and Planning Manager Greg Mott were present f()r the staff report. Mr. Peroutka said he would begin the work session by playing the two videotapes that were presented at the regular session public hearing on April 8, 2002. He said George Grier submitted the first portion of this video, and Brenda Leavitt submitted the second portion. He said tbey also submitted letters witb tbe videos, and copies of those letters were circulated. The video was played for council viewing. . Mr. Peroutka said we don't have tbe types of information or any discrepancies that have come out in the flood plain mapping by FEMA in regards to the Glenwood area. He said since the dams were built there has not been a 100-year flood in Glenwood. . Councilor Hatfield said approximately 4-5 years ago the Willamette flooded in Alton Baker Park and asked if Glenwood had been affected at that time. Mr. Peroutka said he does not recall any significant flooding in the Glenwood area during that time. Mr. Steve Moe was present in the audience and said tbe last time Glenwood flooded was in 1953 before Lookout Point Dam was built. Mr. Peroutka said Councilor Hatfield had asked staff to provide an update about work that FEMA has been doing regarding the Thurston area. Mr. Weber thought we needed to get some additional data that included the original models from 1968. Mr. Peroutka said that information was available at Lane County and staffhas sent that information to Mr. Weber, along with the original maps and working documents from Baker Engineering. Mr. Weber will then compare the working documents with the model and do some analysis. Mr. Peroutka said that should take approximately two weeks for the comparison, and that he has requested Mr. Weber provide his analysis and response in writing. He confirmed that no work is necessary at this time by the staff. . Councilor Simmons asked how tbe 1968 data connects to the creating of an updated map. Is there a way to spot check and cross checking a couple of sites that would validate elevations allowing verification to see if original data compares with the spot checks? This would show if there are any differences or not. Minutes ofthe Springfield City Council Work Session - April 15, 2002 Page - 2 . Mr. Peroutka said that Tom Poage prepared data from the 1996 flood comparisons, and that this information would also be sent up to Mr. Weber, along with the EGR study (Levi Landing). Councilor Simmons asked about the flood plain results that Sony had completed at the time of their development in the Gateway area. Mr. Kelly said approximately 6 weeks ago when the council met they asked for three work sessions on flood plain. One work session that addressed the McKenzie River; one addressing the general Willamette system; and one addressing the Willamette River in Glenwood. He said now that those work sessions have been held, staff would like to ask council ifthere is any additional technical information, or maps they might need to review prior to the April 29th date, in which tbe Peace Health and Arlie annexations are scheduled for hearing. He asked if they were comfortable with the information that staff had provided, and were they better prepared. In addition, Mr. Kelly asked council if they wanted to consider the development of any interim guidelines, or if they wanted staff to develop any guidelines for council consideration. If so, how long would those interim guidelines be in effect? He said staff could take a quick look and work closely with Mr. Joe Weber in order to reconcile any differences, or did council want staff to do more than that in the long term and update tbe FEMA maps. He said tbat would take much longer than a couple of months and would be more costly. He asked that they keep in mind between now and tbe 29th what their request is for the long term and how they wanted the issue resolved. Mayor Leiken asked what the interim is based on. . Mr. Kelly said there are regulations currently in place regarding annexation and development in the flood plain. He said council could either cboose to stay with those regulations until we get better scientific data, and in that case, there would be no need for any interim guidelines or policies. . Councilor Hatfield said there are a lot of questions and he does not feel they can formulate good policy changes until there are some answers. He said we need to continue the data analysis. He is interested in having Mr. Weber do conduct this analysis, and said until that is done, it is unknown what needs to be changed, and difficult to develop any interim guidelines or policy changes. He suggested that staff perform some onsite checks, in order to determine where we currently are, and again, does not see any reason to change policies and development code until there is data that tells us we need to make those changes. Councilor Lundberg said when Mr. Weber was here he had said that if he had the original information, according to his hypothesis, there should have been red flags regarding that information. The information staff has sent to Mr. Weber should have the ability to identify those issues. She asked what it is in the codes that might be wrong in terms of how they are interpreted for any development we may approve now. Since our current codes deal with how development can occur in a flood plain, is it necessary to change the codes? What assurances are in our codes or annexation agreements that would allow us to want to do something on an interim basis? Would we need to change our codes even ifthe floodplain information changes? . Mr. Peroutka said the information from the modeling is not going to indicate anything that requires us to change the code. Staff is going through the ESA code amendments currently and Minutes ofthe Springfield City Council Work Session - April 15, 2002 Page - 3 . will be analyzing that information. He said that is not related to what data staff currently has or how accurate our current maps are. Councilor Lundberg asked if there are any mechanisms in place that would allow us to deal with changes or new information that comes forward from the time of annexation to the date a development application is filed. City Attorney Joe Leahy said that when a development application is filed, it is entitled to the law that is in effect at the time it is filed. An annexation request is different. Normally, when an annexation request is filed and the city council makes a recommendation for approval to the boundary commission, it is tben approved. If that person or company comes in later for a development application, then the law in effect on the date the application is received is the date that is applied. At some point, if the council chose to change the law, only those development applications that came in after the law had changed would be subject to the new law. It is not retroactive. Councilor Fitch said she is fine with the Willamette data. She also felt the development code was fine in it's current state. She said she has heard nothing in tonight's discussion that would make her feel that we have a faulty development code. She did ask, however, how we should proceed if we lost a major piece and someone had not yet developed, but had their permits already? . Mr. Leaby said council would have to take a look at wbat makes sound sense on potential liability. He said we would rely on the information tbat is on band at the time. He said he migbt suggest a further review in order to develop a clearer understanding. Councilor Simmons said there is no need to make any changes to the development code at this time. He said developers and individuals seeking to develop deserve to be treated on an equal footing basis. Looking at the development code, it says tbey have to have an elevation of one foot above the 100-year flood. He feels that until firm data is provided we should not arbitrarily change development standards. He said we are trying to keep all the people involved in the process and fully informed of potential flooding. If we find information that is different, he agrees witb Mr. Leahy that there would be a place in time for discussion in court. Councilor Ralston agreed with the comments made. He asked Mr. Leahy, ifthe FEMA maps are indeed incorrect, who would be liable for any damage tbat might occur? Mr. Leahy said it would not be the City of Springfield. Councilor Ballew said if FEMA undertakes changing the maps, what is the timetable to complete. a new map of the McKenzie? Mr. Leahy said a lot of that depends on how much confidence we bave or how much input we want to have ratber then simply turning it over. He said there is a lot of room for discussion, and is unsure at this time what the City Manager would direct. Councilor Ralston said since tbe maps could be wrong, it would be in FEMA' s best interest to begin their work on correction as soon as possible. . . . . Minutes of the Springfield City Council Work Session - April 15, 2002 Page - 4 Councilor Hatfield said if these cross-sections were inaccurate, it would be good reason for FEMA to come in and re-map. Otherwise, it may be a long time before we show up on the FEMA radar screen. Councilor Lundberg had a question regarding people living outside the flood plain area and flood msurance. The council discussed flood insurance, and Councilor Fitch responded to questions of the council related to flood insurance. It was discussed that if there are citizens that live in a zone or area that is questionable for flooding, that it might behoove them to consult with their insurance agent regarding the possibility of flood insurance. After further discussion, Councilor Hatfield the general consensus of the council as follows: 1. Council wants to continue with data collection and analysis · The FEMA cross section analysis · The study of cedar creek basin, including the aerial mapping of the east Thurston area. · The Army Corp of Engineers doing a reconnaissance study (metro waterways study) and returning itto council. 2. Once the data is obtained, if at that time it is determined that a policy discussion needs to occur, the council will do so. He said until that time it would be premature. He felt council needed to discuss possible projects, and have some very serious discussion about protecting the urbanized area from new flood threats and what impacts that might have. He concluded that this issue strictly deals with the Thurston area. Mayor Leiken thanked staff for all of their work on this issue. At the request of Councilor Simmons a speakerphone was set up and dialed so that the council could listen to the recording that was placed on the Inter Agency Narcotics Enforcement Team (INET) telephone line. He said he wanted the council to hear what the average citizen hears when dialing this number. He discussed concerns oflow-level drug dealers in the downtown area, and the lack of resources available to deal with this type of activity. He said when funding and budget discussions occur in the near future, he will bring this discussion back to light. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:51 p.m. Minute Recorder -'- Kim Krebs ATTEST: 3,Ltle- LvC( c:JJ\'\ City Recorder