Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/28/03 Mtg MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber--City Hall July 28, 2003 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gary Pap~, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Nancy Nathanson, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon (via telephone). Mayor James Torrey called the meeting to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Torrey reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Janetta Overholser, 30300 Cottage Grove Lorane Road, Cottage Grove, president of the Cottage Grove Humane Society, wished to address the responses to the public forum commentary on the closure of the Lane County Animal Regulation Authority (LCARA) cattery that several councilors had given. She noted that one response had been that the human services budget provided a vital service and had also been severely cut. To that point, she asserted that keeping the cattery open provided a vital human service. She related a recent call from an elderly woman who had found a box of abandoned kittens in her garage and had not known who to turn to. She added that the woman's neighbors had advised her to move the box elsewhere and let someone else pick them up. She shared two other stories of abandoned cats. She alleged that a cat had been brought in by a battered woman, noting that statistics indicate that people who are cruel to people are also more likely to be responsible for animal cruelty. She felt that animals were a good barometer for gauging abuse of partners and children. With no agency responsible, however, she alleged that such reports would fall by the wayside. Ms. Overholser stated that she was a member of the Lane County task force that was working on a report to provide to the Board of Commissioners. She said that even if the commissioners had the report today, the money would not be available for some time. Mayor Torrey, noting that 15 people had expressed a wish to speak, asked for direction from the council. Councilor Taylor moved, seconded by Councilor Kelly, to allow everyone to speak. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 4:3; councilors Pap6, Nathanson, MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 1 Regular Meeting and Meisner voting in opposition (Councilor Solomon had yet to be contacted). Scott Sham, 4086 Southway Loop, Springfield, advocated for flying the Prisoner of War/Missing in Action (POW/MIA) flag on Skinner Butte. He felt that this would be a small way to commemorate those who had given their lives for the cause of freedom. Nick Urhausen, 2058 Warren Street, representing Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) Post 293, provided an outline of what was the desired outcome of the testimony from veterans. He stated that the local veterans wanted a ceremony to be scheduled for September 19, which has been designated as the official day of remembrance for POW/MIAs. He further explained that the veterans wanted the POW/MIA flag to fly below the flag of the United States on Skinner Butte. He noted that Stub Stewart had "given his blessing" to the project. He commented that the City of Eugene preached the value of diversity and this flag would honor diversity as well. He stressed that there would be no cost. James A. Mehringer, 279 Bushnell Lane, commander of Chapter 22 of the Disabled Veterans, spoke in support of flying the POW/MIA flag on Skinner Butte. He related the story of Clifton Cushman, an Olympic silver medalist, who was MIA in Vietnam. He stressed that Mr. Cushman's family did not have a place to mourn his passing. In closing, Mr. Mehringer commended Bob Hope, who had just died, for all of the entertainment he had provided the troops. Betty Porter, 155 Corliss Lane #8, stated that, as a veteran, she had been forced to fight for her right to health benefits. She felt that she was now fighting to put a POW/MIA flag on Skinner Butte. She said that, as Americans, all people had to comply with and get along with each other, no one was exempt. As such, she asserted that this flag should fly, regardless of any opposition that might arise, as people must honor opposing points of view. Judi Greig, 2043 Smithoak Street, related the story of a mother of a boy who left Eugene in 1966 at the age of 17 and went to Vietnam. She said the boy did not return. She advocated for providing this woman a place to honor her son. She stated that dying for freedom was not the worst thing that could happen to one, but being forgotten was. Mark English, 1279 Olympic Street, Springfield, spoke with passion about the freedoms available to residents of the United States. He stated that 8,100 people were missing in action in Korea, and 1,800 were missing in action in Vietnam. He asserted that not enough was being done to find the remains of those missing. He felt that the flag should be raised to show due respect. Walter Hlebechuk, 2116 Grant Street, service officer of the Springfield VFW Post 3965, stated that he was 100 percent disabled due to injuries sustained in combat in Vietnam. He stressed that MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 2 Regular Meeting the POW/MIA flag would honor the diversity of the community. He commented that he missed seeing the cross on top of Skinner Butte. Shirley Stoy, 1625 Henderson Avenue, #B9, president of the Ladies Auxiliary of the Coburg VFW 7384, provided the history of the POW/MIA flag. She explained that the flag had been commissioned by the wife of a missing soldier. She stressed that the flag's visibility aided in maintaining the missing in peoples' minds and existed as a symbol of national commitment to the POW/MIAs. She noted that Congress had voted to designate the flag as the symbol of POW/MIAs. Rick Ormond, 103 North Shore Drive, Lowell, related the story of his armed attempt to stop the removal of the cross on Skinner Butte. He felt that the cross was not a religious symbol but rather a memorial to those killed in war. He advocated for the placement of the POW/MIA flag on Skinner Butte, noting that it was not a religious symbol. Bruce Miller, PO Box 50968, spoke in support of the Pell Grant program at the University of Oregon. He commended Mayor Torrey's support for education. He submitted materials to the council for its perusal. Additionally, Mr. Miller supported the placement of the POW/MIA flag on Skinner Butte. Zachary Vishanoff, Villard Street, voiced his support for placing the POW/MIA flag on top of Skinner Butte. Mr. Vishanoff spoke on cell towers, noting that one was slated to be placed near Hayward Field. He commented that cell towers were large and unattractive, and that the health implications of them had yet to be fully understood. He stated that there was a new kind of cell tower, called a "mini-cell," which could be placed on top of telephone poles. He noted that the State of California had instituted stringent cell tower standards. Continuing, Mr. Vishanoff advocated for a Lane Transit District (LTD)-sponsored forum for pedestrians regarding the median for the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) slated to be built on Franklin Boulevard near Onyx Street. He said that this crossing was already dangerous and that several people had been hit by cars there. Gabe V. Kjos, 1450 East 13th Avenue, legislative associate for the Associated Students of the University of Oregon, urged the City Council to postpone the vote on or vote against the proposed ordinance regarding the citation authority of the University of Oregon Department of Safety (DPS) until the students were available to weigh in on the process. He suggested that, upon the return of the students, a survey should be circulated. Chris Rouse, 571 West 13th Avenue, officer in the University of Oregon DPS, supported the ordinance that would give DPS officers the ability to issue citations for alcohol abuse and MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 3 Regular Meeting possessions of minor amounts of marijuana. He stressed that this represented a tool to increase efficiency on the job and that many of the people who were cited were non-students. Mr. Rouse added that he was a veteran and spoke in support of flying the POW/MIA flag on Skinner Butte. Mayor Torrey closed the Public Forum and invited comments from councilors. Councilor Nathanson, in response to a comment regarding the vote to extend the time allotted for the Public Forum, clarified that this was not an unusual action for a public body to take. Councilor Nathanson was pleased to see the item on the POW/MIA flag presented. She requested the City Manager to write a report on the logistics of such an item. City Manager Taylor agreed to do so. Councilor Pap~ echoed Councilor Nathanson's request. Councilor Meisner thanked the veterans for their input. He noted that it did not require City Council action to put the POW/MIA flag on Skinner Butte. Councilor Bettman thanked those who spoke. She commented that the veterans had presented the proposal to fly the POW/MIA flag as if it had been an item that the City Council had opposed, though it had not. She supported the installation of the proposed memorial. Councilor Poling thanked the veterans for their public input, noting that six members of his family had fought in wars. He commented that the very fact the public could speak before the City Council without fear of retaliation pointed to the freedom citizens of this country enjoy. Councilor Kelly stated that this was the first time that the possibility of flying the POW/MIA flag had been presented to the council. He noted that it had seemed as though the Council had already voted against this item, from the way some of the members of the public were speaking. He commented that flying the POW/MIA flag was entirely appropriate. Councilor Kelly requested that the City Manager determine a way to educate the public on the process to create a memorial so that they would not have to start in the Public Forum. Mayor Torrey expressed appreciation to all those who came for the Public Forum. Mayor Torrey invited all present to join him in applause for Jan Childs, outgoing Planning Director. He commended her for all the work she had done for the City. All those present gave Ms. Childs a thunderous round of applause. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 4 Regular Meeting 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - June 23, 2003, Work Session - June 23, 2003, City Council Meeting - June 25, 2003, Work Session - July 9, 2003, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Approval of Findings and Recommendations from the Hearings Official and Adoption of Resolution 4772 Forming a Local Improvement District for Paving, Constructing Curbs and Gutters, Sidewalks, Median, Parking Bays, Street Lights, and Storm Water Drainage System on Lone Oak Drive from Division Avenue to 250 Feet East of Lone Oak Way (Job #4058 Council President Pap~ moved, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Councilor Bettman stated that she had previously submitted corrections to the minutes. She pulled Item 2C. Councilor Kelly stated that he had submitted corrections to the minutes via e-mail. Councilor Taylor provided the following correction to the minutes from the City Council meeting held on June 23' Page 9, paragraph 10: "Ms. Taylor moved to supply funding for the catteryportion of the Lane County Animal Regulation Authority~ll~T ~,~ o,~w.~... )~n:~ma! o,~v.~,.~l. ,, Mayor Torrey, seeing that there were no objections to the changes to the minutes, called for a vote on the Consent Calendar. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar, with the exception of Item 2C, passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Bettman thanked staff for providing the information on this item. She said that apparently the funding package included $3,000 in transportation systems development charges (SDCs) and $43,730 in Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. She asked for clarification, as the street in question was a local street. Paul Klope, Principal Civil Engineer for the Public Works Department, responded that this street was providing direct service to the properties that were at the end of the street. He noted that it was a local street. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 5 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman asked if portions of the street not paid for by assessments would be paid for by the City. Mr. Klope affirmed this to be so. He explained that improvements to this street would provide access to two existing lots and would not qualify as an improvement to transportation capacity for the region. He explained that a subdivision could choose to ask the City to build the local streets or they could build the streets themselves, which was the norm. He said that this particular subdivision had petitioned the City to provide the street infrastructure. Councilor Bettman commented that she did not understand how the City could continue to afford to contribute when streets get upgraded, particularly if it was a street that only served the residences of the street. Mr. Klope responded that, procedurally, staff was merely complying with the assessment code as created and approved by the council. Councilor Bettman declared her opposition to this action, stating that there had to be some new capacity in this infrastructure beyond that which would serve the two properties, and possibly formation of a local improvement district (LID) would be less costly to the City. Councilor Kelly asked for a more detailed response on what the transportation SDC would pay for in this project. Mr. Klope replied that the $3,000 would be spent to construct a pedestrian refuge island, which would allow pedestrians to cross halfway and then have a safe place to wait until traffic abated enough in the other lane to finish crossing. He added that the pedestrian refuge island would be constructed on Division Avenue, which was not a local street, but a major connector. Councilor Pap~ noted that he and Councilor Kelly had helped to formulate this funding mechanism through the work that they had done on the AdHoc Committee on Street Improvement Financing. He supported the resolution as it would provide sidewalks. Councilor Nathanson thanked staff for the vicinity map included in the council packet. Councilor Meisner asked how the City's cost in the project compared between the two scenarios, that of the subdivision paying for the improvements or the scenario of the petition request for the City to provide the improvements. Mr. Klope responded that, when the improvements were done by the developer, if they construct elements normally paid for by the City, the developers would then receive some SDC credit to reimburse them for that portion. Councilor Meisner requested that this sort of comparative information be provided on an ongoing basis when items such as this were under consideration. Councilor Bettman said that the City was partially picking up the cost of sidewalks. She noted that a block of residents on 24th Avenue had been assessed for the entire cost of the sidewalks installed there. She felt this to be the flaw in this project and that the City could not afford to offset the cost of expanding the system when the City could not afford to maintain the existing system. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 6 Regular Meeting Roll call vote; the motion to approve Item 2C approving the findings and recommendations from the Hearings Official and adopting Resolution 4772 forming a Local Improvement District for paving, constructing curbs and gutters, sidewalks, median, parking bays, street lights, street trees, and storm water drainage system on Lone Oak Drive from Division Avenue to 250 feet east of Lone Oak Way (Job #4058) passed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Bettman voting in opposition. 3. PUBLIC HEAR1NG: Remanded Needed Housing Code Provisions Ordinance A: May 2003 Ordinance Concerning Remanded Needed Housing Provisions Ordinance B: Planning Commission Recommended Ordinance Concerning Remanded Needed Housing Provisions City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Jan Childs, Planning Director for the Planning and Development Department, who provided the staff presentation on the item. Ms. Childs stated that this was a public hearing on ordinances to reinstate provisions of the Eugene Land Use Code remanded by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) for reasons related to the State's needed housing statutes. She explained that Ordinance A had been prepared by the City Attorney at the direction of the council to reinstate all of the provisions and that Ordinance B was the recommendation of the Planning Commission and would reinstate most of the provisions, but not all of them. She noted that the changes that were recommended by the Planning Commissioner were listed on pages 144 and 145 of the council agenda packet and that Planning Commission President Adell McMillan would speak to those recommendations in the public hearing. She added that responses to most of the questions that had arisen in the City Council work session held on June 23 had been included on pages 145 and 146 of the agenda packet. Regarding the question that had been included on the list of council assignments, she said that the response would be provided in the council packet due out on July 31. Ms. Childs called attention to the staff response to Question 1. She said that staff had prepared an amendment, for council consideration, that would clarify the width of public ways for bicycle and pedestrian use. Additionally, she noted that staff had reviewed the rewrite of Section 9.6815(e), shown renumbered as (d) in the ordinances, to see if clear and objective language could be developed to better address the entire remanded provision. She stated that staff was unable to do so and recommended that the council consider deleting this amendment prior to adoption. In closing, Ms. Childs said that it had been an honor and privilege to serve the City Council of Eugene over the last 14 years. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 7 Regular Meeting Adell McMillan, 55 West 39th Avenue, spoke on behalf of the Planning Commission to support the commission's recommendation that Ordinance B, which included the commission's revisions based on public testimony and further comments from staff and the City Attorney's office, be adopted. She expressed the commission's belief that the ordinance responded well to the remand issues. She noted that the commission had approved, in general, all of the provisions in Ordinance A, with the exception of the following: · Remove Section 9, 'Special Safety Requirements,' as the section would require needed housing projects to automatically include traffic calming based strictly on the projected increase in the traffic and would not provide direction on the location of the traffic calming feature, nor would it indicate whether the intent was to slow the speed of traffic or influence traffic routes. She noted that if staff believed that a traffic calming feature was not necessary, the applicant would still be required to go through the adjustment review process to get relief from that requirement. · Remove Section 10, 'Transit Facilities,' as this section automatically required a developer to provide a transit facility but would not allow for site specific considerations or changes that occur in transit routes. · Amend Section 11 to remove subsections (21) and (22), as this section contained adjustment review criteria for emergency medical travel time provisions and traffic calming features that were not necessary due to the recommendation to remove the actual standards. · Amend Sections 13, 14, 16, and 18 to remove reference to emergency medical travel time, as it had been felt that adoption of a map that was subject to daily changes in traffic, infrastructure improvements, and time of trip was poor zoning practice. Additionally, fire station improvements could occur at any time resulting in outdated ordinances. No general standards exist within the code that require a project to be located in an area that could be provided emergency medical services within a certain amount of time. For the above listed reasons, she reiterated the Planning Commission recommendation that the council adopt Ordinance B. Roxie Cuellar, 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, representing the Home Builders Association, Lane County, conveyed the Home Builders Association support for Ordinance B. She expressed appreciation that the Planning Commission had listened to the concerns of the Home Builders Association and had addressed many of them. Ms. Cuellar cited 9.6505(3)(b), regarding streets and alleys, which directed developers to pave streets and alleys adjacent to the development site to the width specified in Eugene Code 9.6870 unless the streets and alleys were already paved to that width, with the provision that the City made a finding that it demonstrated consistency with the constitutional requirement. She stressed that the adjustment process did not apply to the needed housing statutes as it would eliminate the clear and objective standards. She asserted that such a requirement would discourage infill as it would create an undue burden on a developer. She also felt that this could create a situation in which a portion of a street next to a development would be paved to the wider parameters, while MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 8 Regular Meeting the rest of the street was not, and that the paving would occur in a patchwork of phases and streets would lack continuity. Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing and requested comments from the council. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. Childs explained that council had brought up, in a study session, that a clear and objective rewrite of the issue encompassed by 9.8165(e), now (d), could not adequately address the full range of the issue that had been remanded. She said that staff had been unable to develop clear and objective language that addressed the issue in its entirety. She commented that the ' 15 percent or greater' stipulation was the best attempt by staff to create a clear and objective standard. Councilor Bettman commented that the stricken language minimized excavation and embankment and avoided impacts to natural resources including water-related features. She felt that a natural resource protection was being eliminated. Councilor Bettman questioned why the traffic calming provision in the code was being "thrown out." She wondered why language could not be crafted so that a clear and objective report from a traffic engineer indicating such a thing would not be needed would eliminate the requirement. She asserted that it would make sense to maintain the policy intent and reword it so that there were clear and objective standards as to what threshold the increase in traffic would have to reach to trigger this requirement. Ms. Childs deferred to the City Attorney's office, noting that staff had experienced difficulty developing language that would meet the statutory tests. In response to a question from Councilor Kelly, Ms. Childs stated that the change on page 145 that would clarify public way widths would be embedded in Ordinance B or come as an amendment. Councilor Kelly requested that his fellow councilors indicate by a nod of the head whether it was acceptable to embed this change in the ordinance. Members of the council indicated general agreement on this. Councilor Kelly requested a written staff response to the issue that Ms. Cuellar raised regarding street width and paving requirements. Councilor Pap~ asked how the street improvement requirements would be implemented if a developer had four or five lots with roads all around them. Ms. Childs responded that she would include this example in the written response from staff, but that she would rather not reply to the question without careful study. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 9 Regular Meeting 4. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Citation Authority of University of Oregon Department of Public Safety on University Property; Adding Section 4.035 to the Eugene Code, 1971; and Amending Section 4.0-6 to That Code Council President Pap~ moved, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4843, an ordinance concerning citation authority for University of Oregon Public Safety Officers. Mayor Torrey called for those wishing to speak to the motion to do so. Councilor Taylor registered her opposition, stating that she objected to passing the ordinance while the majority of university students were not in town due to the summer break. She stressed that the students would be the most affected by the ordinance and should have a right to speak to it. She shared her doubts on providing this level of authority to people who were not police officers. Councilor Poling stressed that this was not an issue of attempting to change the behavior of area residents, it was a cost-saving issue. He stated that it would upgrade the standards required of the personnel in the University of Oregon Department of Public Safety (DPS) and would increase the efficiency with which the Eugene Police Department (EPD) could respond to calls. He emphasized that this ordinance singled out no one and that it was important to implement it in an expeditious fashion so that it was in effect when the students returned. Councilor Kelly thanked staff for clarifying that State law limited the applicability of the ordinance to an officer that had completed commissioning training. He agreed with Councilor Poling that the idea had a great deal of merit, but felt that students should have had more opportunity to provide input. He noted that the article in the student newspaper had been printed during "dead week." Councilor Kelly moved, seconded by Councilor Taylor, to table the motion. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 5:3; councilors Kelly, Pap~, and Taylor voting in favor. Councilor Bettman agreed with a large measure of Councilor Poling's remarks. She felt that it was a budget issue and that it would be fiscally responsible to support the motion. She noted that there were 8,000 students on campus during the summer, yet only two chose to come to the hearing that had been held in the previous week. She related that she had not heard a substantive reason not to support the motion. Councilor Bettman thanked interim Police Chief Thad Buchanan for including direction to staff to return in a year with an analysis of how the shift had worked and whether there were any objections on the part of the University students. She also expressed appreciation for the MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 10 Regular Meeting collaborative work that the University of Oregon, EPD, and the DPS had done to aid the City of Eugene in addressing budgetary constraints. Councilor Pap~ supported the ordinance. He felt that this would hold the campus residents to the same standard of behavior as the surrounding community. Councilor Pap~ was sympathetic to Councilor Kelly's argument, stating that the two basic tenets of a good democratic government was notice and the opportunity to be heard. He did not think that these had been adequately provided to campus residents. He supported the ordinance, but encouraged the City Manager to hold any future items that would affect the University of Oregon during the school year. Mayor Torrey asked the City Attorney if the students of the University of Oregon could ask a councilor or the mayor to submit an amendment to this ordinance at any time. City Attorney Glenn Klein confirmed this to be so. Councilor Taylor stressed that even if she felt this to be a good idea she would not support the ordinance as it violated the principles of representative government to address an issue at a time when the affected constituents were not able to participate. Councilor Taylor reiterated concern that the power granted to DPS officers would not be wielded wisely. Councilor Kelly moved to amend the motion to make an amendment to Section 4.035 of the ordinance by deleting subsection (2), deleting the number for subsection (1), and amending the first sentence of that subsection by inserting "sections 4.115 and 4.240 between the words "of" and "this code." The motion to amend died for lack of a second. Councilor Meisner asked for a formal statement on the record on the authority that DPS officers currently have. Sergeant Kris Martes, Eugene Police Department, stated that currently DPS officers that had received commission status could make arrests for felonies and misdemeanors which can be jail- able offenses. Mayor Torrey called for the vote. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Taylor voting in opposition. Mayor Torrey called for a ten-minute break at 9 p.m. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 11 Regular Meeting 5. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Multiple-Unit Housing; and Amending Section 2.945 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Council President Pap~ moved, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4844, an ordinance concerning multiple unit housing tax exemptions. Councilor Bettman supported the motion. She stressed that a critical mass of housing was needed to support the downtown area. She opined that incentives needed to be surgically targeted and that this project fulfilled this objective. She said that this tax exemption would encourage home ownership, noting some people had felt that the proposed housing would be too expensive. She remarked, to that end, the council had supported low-income housing and would continue to support a diversity of development. Councilor Bettman averred that the project slated to be built would set an example for other developers and would encourage them to follow suit in the downtown area. Councilor Meisner echoed Councilor Bettman's sentiments. He asserted that the "surgically applied" ordinance would promote a variety of housing types in the downtown area. Councilor Nathanson foresaw more of these ordinances coming before the council. She called it an "important tool"for revitalizing neighborhoods that needed help. She noted that this was especially true, considering the report from the West University Neighborhood Task Force. Councilor Taylor registered her opposition to the motion. She commented that, if this was surgery, it was in the "wrong place and for the wrong people." While she did not object to high- end housing being built in the downtown area, she felt that the people who would be purchasing the condominiums in question could afford to pay their property taxes. She likened it to providing tax perks to rich people. She stressed that low-income people were sometimes faced with the specter of possible loss of housing due to the expense of property taxes. Councilor Poling cited page 227 of the agenda item summary in which it stated that the Multi- Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) only exempted the improvements from taxation for a period often years, and not the value of the underlying land. He stressed that the people who were buying the condominiums were not completely exempt from property taxes and that, following the ten-year period, they would be paying taxes on a much appreciated property, due to the improvements. He called it a win-win situation. Mayor Torrey called for the vote. Role call vote; the motion passed 7:1; Councilor Taylor voting in opposition. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 12 Regular Meeting 6. ACTION: Resolution 4766 Authorizing the City Manager to Make Application to the State of Oregon Economic and Community Development Department for Designation of a Vertical Housing Development Zone Council President Papd moved, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, to adopt Resolution 4766 authorizing the City Manager to make application to the State of Oregon Economic and Community Development Department for designation of a vertical housing development zone. Councilor Bettman asked, given that the resolution could be applied to nodal development areas, why this had not been included in the proposal. Richie Weinman, Urban Services Manager for the Planning and Development Department, responded that this particular resolution had arisen as a tool to implement the downtown vision. He suggested that, should the council want to pursue the application of such a designation for nodal development areas, the council could direct staff to prepare a proposal to do so. Councilor Bettman commented that there was a significant amount of residentially zoned property within the boundary. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Weinman assured her that the State could not change the zoning of local property but could only grant a tax exemption, that land uses and the permit process were still functions of the City. Councilor Bettman moved, seconded by Councilor Taylor, to amend the motion to exclude all property that was zoned R/Residential within the boundary. Councilor Bettman stated that the intent of moving forward with the vertical housing zone was to increase housing density and not to replace residential with commercial. She felt that this incentive could be applied for to convert a four-floor apartment so that the first floor was commercial. As such, she asserted that this resolution could potentially decrease the housing density and defeat its intent, but would then only require one floor of residential above. In addition, she stated, this could lead to overcommercialization and actually unfairly compete with existing downtown commercial property. Councilor Kelly appreciated Councilor Bettman's contention that the vertical housing zone should be applied to nodal development. He supported the motion, but not the amendment, remarking that the example cited was not economically likely. Councilor Meisner echoed Councilor Kelly's comments, stating that he would not support the amendment. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 13 Regular Meeting Councilor Taylor said that she had been concerned with the size of the district, but that Councilor Bettman's motion had addressed this for her. She commented that making the district too large could cause much development to happen on the periphery of the downtown area, when development needed to occur in the center of the downtown area. Responding to Councilor Kelly's comments, Councilor Bettman asserted that the amendment did no harm. She said that, though the example she cited was somewhat unlikely, the amendment would not greatly impact the boundary of the vertical housing zone and would protect residential housing from being taken out of the downtown housing inventory. Councilor Kelly disagreed, stating that the harm that could come from the amendment lay in the possible preclusion of a desirable project with one story of commercial development and three or four stories of residential above it. He said that he would not support this ordinance if it would allow the potential conversion of a purely residential structure to a purely commercial one. Councilor Meisner noted that there was only R-3 and R-4 properties within the boundary. He offered his support for the amendment if its applicability could be only limited to R-2, R-3, and R- 4 properties, with the exception of the special use district. Councilor Nathanson opposed the amendment. She commented that there were some structures that would benefit from replacement as they were dilapidated. She felt that the amendment could limit the kind of development in the downtown area that the City wanted to promote. Councilor Meisner submitted a friendly amendment to limit the applicability of the exclusion in Councilor Bettman's amendment to properties zoned R-3, and R-4, with the exception of the special uses district. Councilor Bettman and Councilor Taylor accepted the friendly amendment. City Attorney Glenn Klein advised Councilor Bettman to amend page 2 of the resolution, after the description, where it said, "particularly depicted on the map attached as Exhibit A hereto" so that inserted after the comma was the statement "except for lands zoned R-3 and R-4." Councilor Bettman accepted the language change as advised by Mr. Klein. In response to a question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Weinman stated that the amendment would shrink the boundary, taking out a small area in the vicinity of Patterson Street and 1 lth Avenue. Councilor Bettman reiterated that the intent was not to increase commercial uses in the downtown area and that this would be a more surgical way of pursuing this intent. Roll call vote; the motion to amend was a 4:4 tie; councilors Meisner, Kelly, Bettman and Taylor voting in favor; councilors Poling, Nathanson, Pap~, and Solomon voting in opposition. Mayor Torrey voted against the motion to amend, and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 14 Regular Meeting Councilor Taylor moved to amend the motion to change the southern boundary of the vertical housing zone to 11th Avenue and the western boundary to Charnelton Street. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilor Bettman registered her opposition to the main motion, and reiterated her concerns. Roll call vote; the main motion passed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Bettman voting in opposition. 7. ACTION: Resolution 4767 Adopting Amended Systems Development Charge Methodology for Local Wastewater System and Amending Resolution Nos. 4740 and 4748 Council President Pap~ moved, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, to adopt Resolution 4767 adopting amended Systems Development Charge methodology for local wastewater system and amending Resolution Nos. 4740 and 4748. City Manager Taylor requested permission for Fred McVey, Engineering Data Services Manager for Public Works Engineering, to come forward to speak to the motion. Mayor Torrey welcomed Mr. McVey to the podium. Mr. McVey stated that the first item introduced was one of four potential changes to SDCs. He noted that the department was bringing four change items and five resolutions before the City Council. He listed the changes, as follows: · Regarding the local wastewater SDC: A change in the rate table, no change in the rate itself, adding additional development types to the rate table and the SDC methodology, contained in Resolution 4767. · Regarding Resolution 4768: Modifications to the stormwater SDC would be adopted as per the recommendations that had come out of a department advisory committee that had conducted a comprehensive review, with substantial changes to the methodology and to the residential rate structure, the net effect of which would be an 18-percent reduction in the current stormwater SDC rate. · Regarding Resolution 4769: Incorporating a geographic adjustment into the transportation SDC which would result in a 20-percent reduction in the street-related component of the transportation SDC in the central area of the City and a four percent increase in areas outside the central area. · Regarding the rate adjustment to the parks SDC: Pursuant to the direction of the council at the April 28 action item that considered a single resolution to address all of these items, staff had returned with two resolutions, an option for a lower parks SDC MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 15 Regular Meeting than had originally been proposed, comprised of a modification to the methodology to achieve the lower SDC increase. Mayor Torrey, noting that 20 minutes remained in the City Council meeting, called for comments to be limited to two minutes. Councilor Bettman objected to this, stating that these items needed to be given due diligence and, should there be too many items on the agenda, some should be deferred to a future meeting. Mr. McVey stated, in response to a question from Councilor Bettman, that the Home Builders Association and the Chamber of Commerce had not opposed the changes in methodology. He said that the SDCs were adequate to pay for the building and maintenance of the infrastructure they were intended to pay for. Councilor Meisner asked to what degree in the four categories of SDC adjustments had staff and the committee worked on adjusting SDCs to accommodate and, according to council policy, encourage redevelopment. Mr. McVey noted that over the last several years some modifications to credit policies had been made related to redevelopment, but that there were no specific effects in the adjustments that would encourage redevelopment, though this encouragement could be an indirect result. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. 8. ACTION: Resolution 4768 Adopting Amended Systems Development Charge Methodology for Stormwater System and Amending Resolution Nos. 4740 and 4748. Council President Pap~ moved, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, to adopt Resolution 4768 adopting amended Systems Development Charge methodology for stormwater system and amending Resolution Nos. 4740 and 4748. Councilor Bettman requested clarification of the discrepancy between the information provided in February that had projected that the reduction in stormwater SDCs had been 13 percent and that now the rate reduction would be 18 percent. Mr. McVey replied that the preliminary figure had been based on the draft basin plan, while the present figure was based on the updated capital project list derived from the final basin plans. In response to another question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. McVey said that the capacity- oriented portions of the projects that serve new development were the cost basis and that the City would have full cost recovery. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 16 Regular Meeting Mr. McVey stated, in response to a concern raised by Councilor Bettman, that all of the relevant project cost components were covered and included in the SDC. Mayor Torrey called for the vote. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. 9. ACTION: Resolution 4769 Adopting Amended Systems Development Charge Methodology for Transportation System and Amending Resolution Nos. 4740 and 4748 Council President Pap~ moved, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, to adopt Resolution 4769 adopting amended Systems Development Charge methodology for transportation system and amending Resolution Nos. 4740 and 4748. Councilor Pap~ noted that, should the council vote in opposition to the resolution, the existing methodology would remain in place. He stated that this was the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Mr. McVey confirmed this, adding that the recommendation had come from the Rates Advisory Committee and was that the geographic adjustment should not be incorporated in previous changes to the transportation SDC. Councilor Pap~ reiterated his opposition to the inclusion of geographic adjustments in the amended SDC methodology. Councilor Poling moved, seconded by Councilor Solomon, to amend the resolution to remove the geographic adjustment to the SDC methodology. Councilor Poling stated that the Rates Advisory Committee had voted against the geographic adjustment, 6:1, and the initial recommendation from staff was not to add such an adjustment. He said that there was no justification for the proposed four-percent increase in methodology for the outlying area as it was not tied to a capital improvement program. He related that the assumption this adjustment was based upon was that citizens in the outlying areas would drive more. He remarked that he would support a lower SDC for the core area of the downtown area, but that the one under consideration was unfair. Councilor Nathanson commented that she had questioned this approach at the initial discussion, held in December 2002. She expressed her preference to keep the methodology as it was and to add the downtown to the list of nodes. She supported the amendment. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 17 Regular Meeting City Attorney Glenn Klein stated, at the request of Councilor Kelly, that legal counsel had determined that the geographic adjustment was legal. Councilor Kelly recognized the intent of Councilor Poling's amendment, but questioned whether, as phrased, it was adoptable. He felt that, should the amendment be passed, the item should be tabled pending revision of the methodology pages. Mr. Klein agreed that, should it pass, the language would need to be revised and that the item would be brought before the council at the meeting scheduled for August 11. Councilor Kelly noted that the council had specifically directed staff to bring this proposal back with a geographic component and that now it appeared that staff would be directed to bring the proposal back a third time. He stressed that the geographic adjustment was intended to implement the growth management policies, including incentives for those things that put less burden on the infrastructure. He stated that the council had also asked for cost neutrality and that discounting the center would not further this as more costs would be borne by the broad public. Councilor Kelly asked, should the geographic component be removed from this item, what would have changed from the existing transportation SDCs. Mr. McVey replied that there were some modifications to the nodal development adjustment to exclude certain development types. Councilor Bettman opined that this proposal was very reasonable. She stressed that the downtown core would receive a 20-percent decrease and it would only increase the transportation SDCs in the outlying area by four percent. She called the increase "negligible." She asserted that there was a clear relationship between longer trips and an increased need for more capacity. Councilor Bettman felt that the Rates Advisory Committee vote was due to bias, asserting that the committee was overly influenced by the Home Builders Association. Councilor Meisner opposed the amendment, for the reasons listed by Councilor Kelly. He said that providing the center of town a discount was a different point. He stressed that it had been the revenue neutrality requirement that mandated the outcome before the council at the present meeting. Councilor Pap~ moved, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, to extend the time for the meeting by five minutes. Roll call vote; the motion carried, 6:2; councilors Bettman and Kelly voting in opposition. In response to a question from Councilor Pap~, Mr. Klein stated that the difference between voting down the amendment and voting down both the amendment and the main motion was that there were still some components that were specific to nodal development. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 18 Regular Meeting Mr. McVey confirmed, in response to Councilor Pap~, that there were some benefits in the current SDCs for nodal development. He stated that the proposed modifications in the resolution simply exempted certain developments from qualifying for the reduction. Councilor Nathanson expressed concern that there might not be time to adequately discuss the issue. She felt that, perhaps, the issue should be tabled to allow the new councilors more time to review the materials. Councilor Bettman asserted that there was no central downtown or central geographic component that was revenue-neutral. She said that, should there not be a geographic adjustment and should the reduction be provided to the downtown core, it would mean that there would be less revenue collected in SDCs. Mayor Torrey called for the vote on the amendment. Roll call vote; the motion to amend failed, 5:3; councilors Solomon, Pap~, and Nathanson voting in favor. Roll call vote; the vote on the main motion was a 4:4 tie; councilors Taylor, Bettman, Kelly, and Meisner voting in favor; councilors Poling, Nathanson, Pap~, and Solomon voting in opposition. Mayor Torrey voted against the motion, and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. Agenda Item 10 was deferred, due to time constraints. The meeting adjourned at 10:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 19 Regular Meeting