Home
The following testimony was submitted by Patricia Muir to the Planning Commision for its April 2 meeting on the fate of Seavy Meadows. This eloquent, clear statement of the land use issues strikes me as an imperative, a persuasive statement of the only logical outcome for this land use decision.
The logic in this statement applies to more than just Seavy Meadows. It affects the future of conflicts between development interests and significant natural features in Corvallis. The fact that this property is owned by the city makes it a critical example that will set an influential precedent for future land use decisions.
To: Members of the Corvallis Planning Commission
From: Dr. Patricia Muir, Plant Ecologist
Re: Land Use Public Hearing on Seavy Meadows (PLD08-00001, SUB08-00001)
Date: March 27, 2008
It is hard to believe that I am testifying yet again against development in the Seavy Meadows wetland area in NE Corvallis, but here I am. I have been involved in land use issues in this area for nearly 20 years now, and over that time, I have seen the wetland open space acreage shrink by approximately half to its current approximately 30 acres. By now, we are talking only about land that is owned free and clear by the City of Corvallis - this isn't a private land use issue by any stretch of the imagination. Further, the land under discussion is part of the wetland complex that comprises planning units N-SEQ-M70-1 and N-VIL-W-3, which were granted "locally significant" status under the Natural Features Provisions of the Land Development Code, implemented in Dec. 2006; most of the area was also granted "locally protected" status at that time.
I want to make it clear that:
What am I concerned about?
(1) I am concerned about the lack of comprehensive planning evidenced in this case. You, the Planning Commission, are being asked to make a decision about one portion of a city-owned piece of land that has an old planned development overlay on it (dating back to 1982, Seavy Meadows Planned Development; see Attachments B & C in the Staff Report) without simultaneously making binding decisions concerning the disposition of the rest of the area. I believe that a Major Modification to a Conceptual and Detailed Development Plan should not be made piecemeal.
(2) A hearing on this proposed development should simultaneously address a plan for the remaining acreage. City staff indicate that they "plan" to (or "agree to") establish a conservation easement (or open space park designation, depending on what you read) on the approximately 27 acres of the Seavy Meadows wetland that would remain after the proposed development is completed. (This is alluded to more than once in the Staff Report prepared for this hearing - e.g., see pages 5, 15, 64 [which claims that "Because of surrounding wetland areas that will be preserved…" [italics mine - there's no guarantee on that preservation!], 162 and page 164, Item D2.) Page 7 and Attachment L-1 in the Staff Report (p 168, "Staff identified applicable decision criteria;" Land Development Code section 2.0.50.16) notes that if more than one application is filed at a time for a specific property or development, all shall be heard by the Planning Commission at the same meeting. The Staff Report indicates that a decision to preserve the remaining acreage at Seavy Meadows is tied to completion of the proposed development - that is, "more than one application…" is implicit in this plan. You should refuse to hear this case until the City formalizes and brings up for public comment its plan to conserve the rest of Seavy Meadows under a conservation easement or as an open space park.
(3) The wetland delineation for the subject property is still under review by the Division of State Lands (DSL) and the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) (e.g., see page 14 of the Staff Report, referring readers to Attachment 1, which contains review materials submitted to DSL and COE). We know that most of the affected property has been delineated as jurisdictional wetland in the past, and that designation is likely to continue, but a decision should not be made until the most recent wetland delineation is either upheld or contested by those agencies. In fact, my reading of materials in the Staff Report indicates that it may be illegal to make a decision in advance of such a determination, given that, according to Page 207 in the Staff Report, Land Development Code, Section 4.13.40, Procedures "…application must accurately indicate locations of significant wetland area and location of proposed development." And b.1. "Site Plan must include graphic depiction of all wetland boundaries as indicated on Corvallis Local Wetland Inventory Map…" How can these criteria be met if DSL and COE are still in decision-making mode about the most recent delineation?
(4) Residents in the area and local environmental groups, including Marys Peak Chapter of the Sierra Club, Audubon Society, the Corvallis Environmental Center, and Benton County Soil and Water Conservation District have provided, in the past, statements of support for preservation of Seavy Meadows as an open space park -- see http://comcast.net/~seavyave/seavy.html) for the open space park concept that has been developed over the years. Further, residents of the area were vocal about supporting designation of Seavy Meadows as a locally significant and protected wetland under the Natural Features Inventory project. For example, if you look at the Draft Natural Features Project Implementation Public Comments and Submitted Information from September 9, 2004, you will see that only nine (9) written comments were submitted and over half (five) of these focused on Seavy Meadows in particular, all calling for it to be given "locally protected" status. To my knowledge, no resident of the area has ever testified in favor of development in the Seavy Meadows area before the City Council or the Planning Commission in all of the years that proposals have been brought forth (and sometimes approved, for nearby areas of the Meadows). These concerns raise issues regarding criteria related to compatibility - e.g., Land Development Code 2.5.40.04, section a.2 (From Staff Report Attachment L-2, Review Criteria; Page 171). You Commissioners are charged with considering the compatibility of the proposed development with "uses on a site and uses relationship to neighboring properties." The "neighboring properties" are almost exclusively "locally significant (or protected) wetlands," and "uses" include those of the plants and animals who rely on the habitat that the wetlands provide and of the people who exercise, walk dogs, bird watch, and so forth in the area. Protection of the entire area as an open space park would be compatible with these uses and neighboring properties; building 43 dwelling units in the middle of the area is not. While the staff report claims that compatibility requirements are met because of the existing zoning (PD(RS-112)), most of the area that immediately surrounds the subject property has not been developed, hence the proposal is not compatible with the existing conditions on the site.
(5) I do not see how the proposed development complies with Land Development Code Section 2.4.30 "Tentative Plat Review Procedures", .04, Review Criterion, 2 - Preservation and/or protection of significant natural features, including 4.13, riparian corridor and wetland provisions and Criterion 4 - Excavation and grading shall not change hydrology….water quality and quantity that supports locally significant wetlands - subject to Chapter 4.13 relating to riparian corridor and wetland provisions. (See Staff Report Attachment L-2, page 168 for these criteria.) How does building housing in a significant natural feature foster its preservation and or/protection? (The claim of compliance on page 11 of the Staff Report, "…proposed Planned Development will eliminate the need to encroach into protected wetland areas…" is bogus. Even if we take "protected wetland" to mean designated as such under the Natural Features provisions in the Land Development Code as implemented in Dec. 2006 (which applies to all of Seavy Meadows except the subject property, which is designated "significant" but not "protected") the development will encroach - many more people, dogs and cats in the area; added traffic; noise; light; and altered hydrology all will encroach! For the same reasons, the Staff Report's claim (page 16) that "Locally significant and locally protected wetlands on adjacent properties will not be affected." is basically nonsensical. You cannot put 43 dwelling units in the middle of a piece of wetland without affecting much of it.) How do the elaborate plans for storing rain water runoff in open detention facilities (and so forth - see pages 82 and 96 in the Staff Report) for gradual release into the City sewer systems protect the water quantity that feeds the adjacent wetlands? From the same section of the Staff Report, Land Development Code Section 2.5.20, Purposes, section c - "Preserve, to the greatest extent possible, existing Significant Natural Features…and use such features in a harmonious fashion." Again, how does the proposed development comply with this criterion? I'm sorry, but it simply does not - housing in the middle of a wetland is not "harmonious" no matter how carefully the housing is designed and constructed!
(6) The plan to develop this area, approved in 1982 and modified in 1991, is old. It predates the full understanding of wetland values that we now have, predates most of Seavy Meadows having been delineated as jurisdictional wetland, and predates it subsequently being designated as a "locally significant wetland" or "locally significant and protected" (depending on which piece you are talking about) by the Natural Features Inventory. These changes over the decades that have elapsed since that PD was approved should put the entire plan back on the table for review and revision, not just a piece of it.
(7) I am struck by a real hypocrisy on the part of the City, which prides itself on being a "green community." The City of Corvallis website's front page trumpets, "Country Home magazine named Corvallis as the 2008 Best Green Place to live in America." Signs on entry to Corvallis proclaim its bicycle and tree friendliness; "sustainability" is the buzz word in public meetings. The City undertook a widely publicized Natural Features Inventory, paying lip service to the importance of protecting natural features that were recognized as being "locally significant" or "locally protected." Yet here we have that same city seeking out development on a portion of a wetland that the Inventory deemed as "locally significant" (and would have deemed as "locally protected" if development wasn't pending on it!) Note page 220 in the Staff Report (Attachment M-6), which states, "In 2004, the City of Corvallis proposed that Willamette Neighborhood Housing Services take the lead role in development of a portion of vacant land alone Conser Street in NE Corvallis." Why should the city be in the business of soliciting development on city-owned locally significant wetlands? I recognize the existence of Minimum Assured Development Area (MADA) language in the City's Building Code. This language was approved in large part so that land owners would not be unduly burdened if some or all of their land was deemed to be a locally significant natural feature. MADA code does not mean that that amount of area must be developed; underutilizing the MADA is legitimate and appropriate, particularly for this case where the City is the land owner!! I also recognize that the City can argue that it could develop on even more acreage in this vicinity under MADA provisions, but I contend that it should not be in the business of selling valuable wetlands to developers, no matter how virtuous the plans of those developers are.
(8) I am concerned about the City's planned mitigation for the fill that would occur on a portion of the area to be developed. First, the City does not have a good track record when it comes to mitigation for wetland losses. Witness the fiasco in the triangle of land provided by the intersection of Walnut Blvd, "new" Conser Ave and "old" Conser Ave, where the city claimed it would accomplish some of the required mitigation for wetland losses that occurred when Walnut Blvd was extended to meet Circle Blvd. Last I knew, Division of State Lands had found this attempt unsatisfactory, and the City was undertaking "mitigation" elsewhere instead. Second, the proposed mitigation would involve removal of raised earth berms that run around the perimeter of portions of Seavy Meadows and run through it in some spots. Removal of these is likely to cause far more disruption than assistance, and they actually provide valuable cover and habitat heterogeneity for wildlife in the area. Further, they would provide places for people to walk while keeping their feet dry during the many months of the year that Seavy Meadows supports standing water, which would be useful if it were an open space park.
My bottom line concern is, of course, for the wetlands and the values they provide, but you are all aware of those and I won't go into them here. A permit to place fill on a portion of this site has been approved by Division of State Lands, so you probably can't vote against this proposal on the basis of wetlands alone. However, please recall that Seavy Meadows is, as far as I know, the largest intact piece of wetland within the Corvallis city limits. Intact, functioning wetlands have become very rare over the past century. The City should set an example of natural resource valuation by putting a conservation easement - or open space park designation - on all of the remaining acreage of Seavy Meadows as part of a comprehensive approach to land use. Its doing so would lend support to the perception of it as a truly "green" town, concerned about sustainability and valuing open space and natural features. Its not doing so undercuts this perception and, if development occurs, news of the action should be spread far and wide.
Thank you for your time in deliberating on this important matter. Please consider whether future generations will benefit more from protection of Seavy Meadows as open space that provides recreational opportunities for the public as well as habitat and ecosystem functions or from housing plunked in the middle of the wetland.