Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 10/24/07 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall October 24, 2007 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Mike Clark, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor. COUNCILOR ABSENTAlan Zelenka : Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the October 24 work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Annual Joint Meeting with Eugene Planning Commission COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown Mr. Duncan convened the October 24 work session of the Eugene Planning Commission. Planning Commissioners introduced themselves City Manager pro tem Angel Jones thanked the Planning Commission for its hard work. She noted that Planning Director Lisa Gardner and City Attorney Emily Jerome were available to help answer questions. Mr. Duncan thanked the City Council for the opportunity to meet with them. He said the Planning Commission felt the face-to-face meetings helped the commission understand what the council expected of the commission. Ms. Solomon arrived at 12:03 p.m. Planning Commissioners offered a review of the July 2006 – June 2007 Annual Report and FY08 Planning Division Work Program, supported by a PowerPoint presentation and documents included in the agenda packet. Mr. Duncan stated the Planning Commission had participated in 60 regular meetings in fiscal year 2007, including 29 meetings that addressed land use applications, half of which dealt with the McKenzie- Willamette Hospital application, and 31 regular meetings. Additionally, the Infill and Opportunity Siting subcommittees each met approximately 15 times since January 2007. The Planning Commission functioned as the Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC) and members sat on a variety of committees MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2007 Page 1 Work Session including the Historic Review Board, the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee, the Airport Advisory Committee, the Rasor Park study process, and the Walnut Station steering committee. Mr. Hledik reviewed the commission’s 2007 accomplishments. He said code implementation consumed the majority of the commission’s resources, noting that the number of land use applications was increasing, and they were becoming more complex. Mr. Hledik said that with additional resources provided by the City Council, the Opportunity Siting and Infill Compatibility Standards subcommittees began meeting in January 2007. Staff and Planning Commissioners met with neighborhood associations and participated in neighborhood tours for a total of 36 meetings. Draft project goals and other program materials were developed and put on the website for public input. Specifically regarding Infill Compatibility Standards, Mr. Hledik stated the subcommittee created a photo library of neighborhood meetings, coordinated with the Neighborhood Leaders Council subcommittee, began developing an Infill Compatibility Standards tool kit, created a map showing the age of residential structures and how different neighborhoods have evolved over time, and sought input regarding the process and composition of the task team that would study the issue further. Mr. Hledik stated the Opportunity Siting subcommittee conducted public outreach in coordination with neighborhood leaders and created an on-line siting survey, soliciting feedback from the community on barriers to high density development, potential incentives to increase higher density, and to help the Planning Commission identify the attributes of Opportunity Sites. It was significant that 24 potential sites were identified through the on-line survey. Mr. Hledik reported the commission continued to meet with the public on the Walnut Station Mixed Use Center (MUC) on outstanding issues. Additionally, the commission reviewed the multi-way boulevard concept along Franklin Boulevard, and began consideration of using Form Based Code to guide development in the area. Mr. Hledik said that public involvement efforts continued in Rasor Park MUC area, with the recent formation of a citizen advisory committee (CAC), to focus direction of that effort. Additionally, the Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone that went into effect January 1, 2006, was being implemented. The final report for the South Ridgeline Habitat Study was available for review. Mr. Hledik reported Phase 2 of the minor code amendment process was a community-driven process. When asked how the process could be improved, members of the public offered over 200 suggestions, of which 20 potential amendments that were representative of the community’s input and priorities were selected for consideration. A library was formed to serve as a clearing house for future amendment efforts for the remaining issues. Ms. Gardner reviewed the revised FY08 Proposed Planning Division Work Program in the agenda packet, identifying the four major program areas: Land Use Code Implementation; Community Character; Regional Coordination; Support Roles (external projects). Mr. Lawless stated the Infill Compatibility Standards and Opportunity Siting subcommittees began their work in October 2007, when over 100 people attended a forum, a majority of whom identified Infill Compatibility Standards as their top priority. The Infill Compatibility Standards team, consisting largely of neighbors, agreed to work cooperatively to identify additional resources for the project. The Opportunity Siting group was forming and would identify high priority sites for a pilot project. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Kneeland offered a review of the Planning Commission’s work on MUCs, including Walnut Station and Rasor Park. Work would continue to proceed on forming the recommended vision of the area which would be considered by the Planning Commission in November 2008. Primary tasks included preparation of the development plan, specifically focusing on form based codes, that would allow the commission to focus more on detailed site specific form and the design rather than the use of buildings for integration into the Walnut Station project. Additionally, the Rasor Park MUC CAC vision specifically related to density, including design and plan elements, as well as implementation strategies, would be forwarded to the Planning Commission later this year. Ms. Kneeland stated continued work on the South Ridgeline Habitat Study would provide an opportunity to enhance public involvement programs and develop recommendations for consideration by the City Council in 2008. The Rasor Park and Walnut Station MUCs and the South Ridgeline Habitat Study would give the commission an opportunity to integrate the Growth Management Policies (GMPs) and become more cognizant on how those policies could shape the commission’s work. Additionally, these three projects would support the commission’s efforts in developing a land survey. Ms. Kneeland said the Planning Commission recognized the need to integrate green planning and sustainability into its work to include collaborating with the newly created Sustainability Commission. Two specific items were solar access from the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) and green infrastructure from the City Council. Mr. Carroll stated additions to the work program House Bill (HB) 3337 required the City to study the supply of and demand for buildable residential lands in the urban growth boundary (UGB) by 2010. The commission recommended broadening the scope of that state mandate to include development of a comprehensive data base that would consist of natural resource lands, and the three major types of land use, i.e., residential, commercial and industrial. The commission further recommended creating the data base in a way that would allow assessment of the redevelopment capacity of those lands. The commission felt strongly that this would be an essential tool as it moved forward with many of its integrated land use projects including Infill Compatibility Standards, Opportunity Siting, MUC implementation, corridor redevelopment, and neighborhood planning. Mr. Carroll said that it was clear from the 2007 Neighborhood Summit attended by most members of the Planning Commission that land use issues were foremost on residents’ minds. The Empowerment Initiative implementation provided a framework for better integration of the commission’s work program tasks both within the Planning Division and across all departments. The Neighborhood Services Program currently housed in the Planning Division and the Empowerment Initiative would enable the commission to work more closely with neighborhood leaders to identify appropriate mechanisms to develop the next generation of refinement plans. Mr. Carroll affirmed the need to assess the strengths and shortcomings, as well as update those plans. Mr. Carroll said the code amendment process brought to like a great demand in the community to make changes in the code. Twenty code elements had been identified for review and possible revision. Mr. Duncan summarized the commissioners’ comments, noting priorities had been solicited from the community in developing the FY08 Work Program. Ms. Gardner thanked the Planning Commission for its work and dedication during the past year. Ms. Gardner asked the City Council for specific direction on prioritization of the work program items, noting the City Manager recommended that the City Council approve the FY08 Planning Commission and Planning Division work program contained in the annual report. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2007 Page 3 Work Session Mayor Piercy noted the incredible work load of the Planning Commission on very important issues of concern to the council and community. Ms. Bettman thanked the Planning Commission for its presentation. She was not prepared to approve the work program today and hoped approval could be postponed until the City Council could hold a work session to discuss the policy and funding issues imbedded in the work program. She stated the GMPs should be implemented and included in the City Code before replacing them. She asked what had happened to adopting the GMP through the minor and major code amendments. Although the new format was polished, Ms. Bettman said she preferred the old matrix format. Mr. Duncan said the Planning Commission had been working on developing a method for implementing GMP as a measuring tool on all land use issues that went before the commission. He acknowledged unanimous support of the Planning Commission to use the GMPs as a strong measurement tool. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Duncan said the Planning Commission was hoping to look at all 19 GMPs when considering land use decisions to better measure land use issues. Ms. Taylor stated with the current City budget, even if there was a need to revisit the GMPs, there was no funding available to take on such a large project. She noted the CIC had been abolished and its duties and responsibilities had been assumed by the Planning Commission. She asked how much time the Planning Commission devoted to being the CIC. Ms. Gardner opined every project had an expanded citizen involvement component. The commission not only served formally as the CIC, but also met with subcommittees and other groups on an informal basis to solicit feedback from the public. She said the format currently being used enabled the Planning Commission to be nimble in creating the necessary opportunities for public involvement. Ms. Taylor hoped there would be no action taken today, expressing concern about a reference in the work program for new staff. Mr. Clark articulated concern about compliance with HB 3337. He asked Ms. Jerome if the legislation required the City to demonstrate or determine a 20-year supply of land. Ms. Jerome said the legislation required the City to both demonstrate and determine a 20-year supply of land, as well as setting a timeline of two years to accomplish specific benchmarks so that a 20-year supply could be demonstrated when a new Eugene-specific UGB was adopted. She added that demonstration of a 20-year supply was not required for the two-year window. A future joint meeting with other local elected officials would provide an opportunity to decide the timing. The setting of the UGB was a complicated process under the statutes, and would not be changed by the requirements of HB 3337. Responding to a question from Mr. Clark, Ms. Gardner said the Planning Commission recommendation was to broaden the scope of the work beyond the requirements of HB 3337 to include a comprehensive lands assessment to provide a database of natural resources, commercial, residential and industrial, and redevelopment capacity. Mr. Clark stated he was encouraged by the letter in the agenda packet to the Planning Commission from Ms. Gardner encouraging the City Council to assess the capacity because a frank conversation regarding this topic was long overdue. He stressed the importance of identifying all of the areas that needed protection. He expressed a desire that the City of Eugene do its best to create a better relationship with other local government partners, noting there was a very real need to have an honest discussion with those partners to enable appropriate planning. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2007 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Ortiz thanked the Planning Commission for all of its work acknowledging the incredible amount of work done by a volunteer group. Although she wanted to support moving on the plan, she was reluctant because of the recommendation to include a commercial and industrial lands supply. As she recalled, the City Council had specifically decided not to so and she was reluctant to move on it if it was not required by HB 3337. Although she wanted to be in compliance with and would support the law, she had not supported the legislation and found the bill “divisive” and “insulting.” She would not support the FY08 Planning Commission and Planning Division work program if it included a commercial and industrial lands supply assessment. Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Jones said it was up to the City Council to determine the Planning Commission work priorities. Recognizing there was insufficient time to get through all of the Council’s policy issues today, she suggested scheduling additional work sessions as the council deemed necessary. Mayor Piercy suggested that the council consider accepting the Annual Report and scheduling a work session in a timely manner to study the policy issues that needed more consideration by the council. Ms. Bettman offered several examples of instances when the City Council accepted a report because it could not approve everything in it, and then it was later “sold” as having council approval. She was reluctant to approve the report today and appreciated Ms. Jones’ willingness to schedule a work session. Several issues needed further study. She expressed surprise about the staff recommendation to conduct an available lands assessment when the City Council had specifically voted not to pursue a commercial and industrial lands study. She supported doing the minimum necessary to be in compliance with State law. While the City was looking at ways to accommodate residential growth within the UGB, it was not considering strategies to increase the capacity for commercial and industrial lands. The council recently reduced the capacity for commercial lands by lowering Floor Area Ration (FAR) and changing the use on commercial properties. Ms. Gardner explained the Planning Commission’s recommendation to complete a comprehensive lands assessment would need the approval of the City Council. The Planning Commission was currently implementing MUCs, as well as studying corridor planning and form based code strategies. Segregating commercial, industrial, and residential land supply did not offer the best opportunity to complete integrated land use planning. A form-based code looked at the form of the development rather than land use designation. Conducting a capacity assessment for an area such as West 11th Avenue had little regard for the land use designation. But, identifying commercial and industrial needs could provide opportunities for future redevelopment of a corridor that could be mixed residential/commercial. Mr. Carroll asserted the issue was inextricably linked to the buildable land supply. However, the Planning Commission needed this tool to enable it to make intelligent recommendations to the City Council. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Jones said no decision had been made regarding a joint meeting with the City of Springfield. However, a letter had been received from the Lane Board of County Commissioners requesting a joint elected officials meeting. Ms. Taylor asked who had decided not to cooperate, asserting it was not the Eugene City Council but rather its neighbors. She said a two-hour work session was needed. Ms. Taylor asked what would happen if the City of Eugene did not comply with the adopted legislation within two years. Ms. Jerome stated she did not know what enforcement action would be taken. She iterated the need for the council to discuss HB 3337 in the context of the Planning Commission work program. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2007 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Taylor said she was “suspicious” and “it was dangerous” to accept, but not approve, the Planning Commission FY08 work program. Mr. Clark stated he was willing to approve the Planning Commission FY08 work program today. The Planning Commission had a great deal of work to do and the City Council should let it get going. Responding to Ms. Taylor’s comment, he said the Eugene City Council had been very clear that it did not want to work with the City of Springfield. The Springfield City Council had been clear in asking the Eugene City Council to work with it. HB Bill 3337 was not imposed on the City of Eugene by the City of Springfield but rather by the Oregon State Legislature in a nearly unanimous vote in both houses, because of the City of Eugene’s reluctance to do what the spirit of the law suggested. Responding to a question from Mr. Clark about whether HB 3337 required the City of Eugene to do a comprehensive plan adjustment with the City of Springfield, Ms. Jerome said a number of policies needed to be addressed, not the least of which was the text that assumed a single UGB. A number of the policies in the residential lands section implicitly assumed a shared UGB. The necessary amount of text changes was a large project. Additionally, setting the UGB was on the Metro Plan diagram would require a significant amount of work. While some of the amendments required approval by more than one jurisdiction, the bill indicated that others did not. Thus, some of the changes would require collaboration with Lane County and the City of Springfield. There was no date neither imposed by other jurisdictions nor required by the legislation. Mr. Clark understood that the Springfield City Council developed language for the proposed Metro Plan changes, and had asked the Eugene City Council to work with them. He further understood that the Springfield City Council decided that it would disengage if the Eugene City Council was not willing to work cooperatively. He asked if the Eugene City Council was willing to work with the Springfield City Council. He was hopeful that the Eugene City Council would not defer the process but rather work collaboratively. Ms. Ortiz did not consider a bill presented at the State legislature an indication of a willingness to work together. She recalled no invitation to talk with the other jurisdictions nor was there an indication a problem existed around Metro Plan issues. She believed the Planning Commission’s work would move forward if the work program was not approved. She was concerned that commissioners felt they would not be able to do as charged by the City Council without approval of the FY08 work program. Mr. Carroll stated the Commercial Lands Study was outdated. He added that lack of direction on HB 3337 prohibited the Planning Commission from addressing planning comprehensively. Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Jones said the City of Springfield contacted the City of Eugene asking what position the Eugene City Council had taken on the HB 3337 issue. Today’s meeting would be the first opportunity to discuss HB 3337. Planning and Development Executive Manager Susan Muir said the City of Springfield sent information to the City of Eugene Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) during the 2007 Legislative Session. Since the bill passed, the City of Springfield had notified the City of Eugene about where it was in the process. Ms. Ortiz preferred to have good “family” relations with the City of Springfield. She would not support putting the motion forward without removal of the recommendation regarding HB 3337. Ms. Gardner suggested that the City Council accept the City Manager-suggested motion to amend the work program and give direction to the City Manager related to specific work program items. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2007 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Pryor appreciated the work of the Planning Commission and the enormous amount of work it undertook to provide the underpinnings in the form of collection of information and analysis for City Council decisions. The emotional reaction around the City of Springfield and the legislature obscured some of the other conversations that needed to happen. He suggested that the council talk in terms of what was in the best interest of Eugene. He felt that most of the Planning Commission work program was desirable, while recognizing that some elements made some people uncomfortable. He suggested moving forward with as much as possible, and not including those parts around which more extensive conversations were needed. He opined it was important for the City Council to give as much direction as possible to the Planning Commission to enable it to do its work. Mr. Pryor welcomed a more extensive conversation around those elements for the best interests of Eugene for which there was not agreement on the council. Having information was preferred over not having information, whether it was related to the Planning Commission developing recommendations or the City Council making decisions. It was difficult to try to govern a community when information was specifically excluded because the answer was not what the council wanted to hear. He said the City did not know the answer because the council continued to not want to ask the question. Eugene was best served when both the Planning Commission and City Council had all of the necessary information to make effective decisions. Ms. Solomon concurred with Mr. Pryor’s comments. Mayor Piercy appreciated the work program elements related to sustainability and working with the Sustainability Commission. She opined it would serve the Planning Commission well to allow the City Council to further consider the work program to enable the council to provide the commission with meaningful feedback. She added it did not serve to characterize the City of Eugene nor the City of Springfield in any particular ways. Ms. Bettman said she could not understand what pieces of the work program related to FY08 or FY09. It was interesting that the Planning Commission was looking at form based code in that it had not been discussed by the City Council. She asked for more information on the advantages and disadvantages of form based code. Ms. Bettman said the City had the tools to look at capacity, including the GMPs, which enabled the City to use the available commercial and industrial land more efficiently. Mr. Clark agreed that the State statutes were clear that if there was an insufficient land supply, either the UGB could be expanded or density policies could be adjusted. He was interested in having accurate information to enable the council to have an honest discussion. He was interested in doing the best for the people of Eugene and a part of doing that was to participate in regional planning. He opined the Region 2050 planning effort “fell apart” because the Eugene City Council did not do a good job of collaborating with other jurisdiction. Mr. Clark was concerned that the City of Springfield was interpreting the Eugene City Council’s actions and words as not wanting to work together in a regional way, which would have harmful effects for the people he served in Eugene through HB 3337 due to the nature of Eugene’s relationship with Springfield. Mr. Clark echoed Mr. Pryor’s comments that it was important for the City Council to have the information. The Planning Commission had good and important work to do, and was telling the City Council it needed more information to plan appropriately, and he wanted to ensure that the Planning Commission got that information. Ms. Taylor said although no one objected to having more information, she did not know if this was the correct time to spend all of the council’s time and energy gathering particular information. She was also concerned that there were not enough resources to revise all of the refinement plans. She added it would MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2007 Page 7 Work Session be good for the City Council to know each time it took action if the proposed action would violate any of the GMPs. Ms. Gardner said the refinement plan update was a concern not only of the Planning Commission, but also identified regularly through public input from neighborhood leaders and the public at-large that the tools were outdated. The Planning Commission found it difficult to make land use recommendations with outdated tools. The scoping project outlined in the work program assumed neighborhood based refinement planning could be done with existing resources. She said the Planning Commission wanted to know if the City Council was interested in finding a mechanism to look at the refinement plans, many of which were 20 years old. Some of those refinements may need only minor adjustments, while others would need to be completely rewritten. Appropriate tools needed to be identified to discover the most effective method for individual neighborhoods. She emphasized including this in the work program was not a request for new funding. Ms. Bettman said code amendments should be consistent with the GMPs. She said she never seen staff recommend not moving forward with a zoning change, land use designation, or variance on the basis of inconsistency with refinement plans. She opined doing refinement plans was a “waste of money” because they were not adhered to. She added the current language regarding opportunity siting had moved away from the original intent and would end up destroying neighborhoods. She asked for more information on transportation planning. Mr. Duncan thanked the City Council on behalf of the Planning Commission for its input on the work program. He asked that the City Council provide more input on the code amendment process, as this was an issue of high interest by the public. Mayor Piercy thanked the Planning Commission for the amazing amount of work it undertook. She thought taking time to further review the FY08 work program would produce a better product. She invited commissioners to send probing questions to the City Council. Ms. Gardner reviewed issues identified by the council for further discussion, including but not limited to HB 3337, refinement planning, code amendments, sequencing of projects, and clarification of resource allocation. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Jones envisioned at least two work sessions, one to finalize and provide direction on the Planning Commission work program, and a second one to discuss broad, regional issues in preparation for the joint elected officials meeting in early 2008. Ms. Ortiz said she would support a joint elected officials meeting. Mr. Duncan asked staff to schedule a Planning Commission work session to debrief today’s meeting. Mr. Duncan adjourned the Planning Commission at 1:25 p.m. Mayor Piercy adjourned the City Council at 1:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2007 Page 8 Work Session (Recorded by Linda Henry) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2007 Page 9 Work Session