Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 01/16/08 Work Session and Meeting of URA M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session and Meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon January 16, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: House Bill 3337 City Manager pro tem Angel Jones introduced Planning Director Lisa Gardner to provide an overview of the item. Ms. Gardner stated that the Planning Commission had recommended conducting a Comprehensive Lands Assessment of all land types as part of the Planning Division's work program. She said the purpose was to expand the City's tools and baseline data as it moved forward with integrated land use projects. She said the council had approved the work program as proposed, with the understanding the issue could be revisited at the current work session. She noted that the agenda packet contained several relevant items, including a scope of work from ECONorthwest and a memorandum from City Attorney Emily Jerome responding to questions raised regarding House Bill (HB) 3337. Mayor Piercy solicited council questions and comments. Ms. Bettman commented that she was not concerned about the bill, which was short and explicit, and she was not concerned with the results of the inventory. She did not think the staff motion was responsive because the bill only required division of the urban growth boundary (UGB) and completion of a buildable lands inventory, which was residential. She disagreed with the staff recommendation to inventory the existing capacity within the UGB and said in her opinion that meant the jurisdictional UGB had to be established first or the inventory would be based on the existing UGB, which was not jurisdictional. She saw two steps: establish the separate jurisdictional UGB and then move forward with the buildable lands inventory within that UGB. She disagreed with the expiration dates for commercial and industrial lands inventories. Ms. Ortiz observed that the City might be reluctant to take action because of the way the legislation was enacted, but it recognized the need to comply with the law. She said the City could comply at the minimal level required by the bill or use the opportunity to work with other jurisdictions. Mayor Piercy referred to a letter recommending that the council avoid a minimal approach and embrace the opportunity for a comprehensive look at all land inventories in order to develop data to inform good planning for the community. She agreed with that recommendation. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Pryor agreed with Ms. Ortiz and Mayor Piercy. He said the council was struggling to understand how the legislation was enacted and responding emotionally to why it was enacted. He felt that good governance meant elected officials had to separate their decision-making from how they might feel about something in order to make decisions that benefited the community. He liked the comprehensive nature of the proposal and appreciated staff's initiative to find greater efficiencies in opportunities to accomplish several tasks simultaneously and coordinate activities beneficial to the process. He supported a Comprehensive Lands Assessment as an opportunity to obtain information on which to base good decisions. Ms. Taylor agreed with Ms. Bettman that the UGB should be established first; otherwise an accurate inventory could not be done. She was opposed to doing more than what was required by law. She felt the actual costs would probably be higher than estimated for the comprehensive inventory and take significant amounts of limited staff time away from other projects. She preferred to do only what was specifically required by the bill in order to use the least amount of money and staff time. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Jerome explained that the bill did not relieve the City from all of the State laws that would apply when a UGB amendment was made. She said at a minimum there would need to be a substantial study of residential lands to justify the new location of the UGB along Interstate 5. She said other applicable statutes required significant findings about whether or not the new UGB was sufficient. She said it was possible that existing studies had enough information to make those findings, depending on how individual City land supplies were viewed, but it was not acceptable to simply draw a new UGB down the middle without further action. Mr. Zelenka asked for clarification of the comprehensive assessment that was being proposed. Ms. Gardner replied that HB 3337 only required an inventory of residential lands, but the Planning Commission had recommended the Comprehensive Lands Assessment to consider commercial, industrial, and residential lands as well as natural resources because that information was important to future planning efforts such as infill compatibility standards, opportunity siting, and corridor redevelopment. As an example, she said that a comprehensive assessment could determine there was a surplus of one type and need for another type of land; the information could facilitate redesignating land in order to meet growth management goals. Mr. Zelenka said the process by which the bill was enacted was not in the spirit of regional cooperation, but the council needed to move beyond that issue. He asked how long a comprehensive assessment would take. Ms. Gardner estimated that it would take a one-year period. Mr. Zelenka remarked that UBGs prevented sprawl and protected critical farmland; changes should be based on a comprehensive assessment of lands currently within the UGB and a determination of whether there were opportunities for redevelopment and reuse of those lands. Ms. Gardner said that one of the reasons for the Planning Commission's recommendation was the chance to include redevelopment opportuni- ties. Mr. Clark commented that the council should bear in mind how creating a scarcity in the marketplace drove up the value of property. He asked for clarification of expiration of current inventories. Ms. Gardner cited the agenda item summary (AIS) language that stated the Commercial Lands Study would expire in 2010 and if no inventory was adopted before that expiration it would be very difficult for the City to make findings under Statewide goals 9 and 10 for land use policy decisions after the study expired. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Mayor Piercy asked why it was necessary to incur the cost of consultants instead of using existing staff. City Manager pro tem Jones responded that staff remained the first choice, but if the expertise was not available or there were time constraints on the project or capacity concerns, it might be necessary to use consultants. Ms. Bettman asserted that the recommended motion was a political strategy to show the City was working with Springfield and it violated the intent of HB 3337. She felt there were already many efforts that enhanced the City's relationship with Springfield. She said her interpretation of the bill was very different and there were two decision points for the UGB; the first step was to divide the UGB by the jurisdictional boundaries in the Metro Plan and the second was to conduct an inventory to determine the urbanizable lands. She said the bill included a provision that it superseded the goals and policies of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) with respect to those actions. She said if an inventory was conducted before a jurisdictional UGB was established it would be using Metro Plan provisions that were not consistent with State law. She thought that conducting an inventory first would violate State law and make the process more complicated. Mayor Piercy asked Ms. Jerome for her response. Ms. Jerome disagreed with Ms. Bettman's interpretation of the law. She stated that establishing a jurisdictional UGB and demonstrating that the comprehensive plan provided sufficient buildable lands within the UGB, as required by sections 2.a and 2.b of the bill, had to be done simultaneously because the demonstration had to occur when the UGB was drawn. She said the City was legally prohibited from drawing a UGB that did not satisfy Statewide Planning Goals. She said the bill preempted comprehensive plan provisions and intergovernmental agreements, but did not preempt Statewide Planning Goals or other statutes related to goal findings at the time of drawing a UGB; therefore, it was the City Attorney's opinion that sections 2.a and 2.b were simultaneous requirements. Mr. Pryor asked if the motion recommended in the AIS was consistent with State law. Ms. Jerome replied that each of options described in the AIS were consistent with the law. Mr. Pryor said that density versus size were the issues that arose and adjusting density requirements in a density only caused the issue of UGB expansion to be raised. He said if the City wanted to pursue a policy of not expanding the UGB that would then raise issues of density. He said the UGB and density were intimately connected and a discussion of those issues should be based on current, useful inventory information. Mr. Clark asked how long the information used to demonstrate sufficient buildable lands was viable. Ms. Jerome said statutes required the residential land study to show a 20-year supply based on data relating to land within the UGB that was collected since the last periodic review or five years, whichever was greater. Mr. Clark asked if the City Attorney agreed with Springfield's legal counsel that the legislative intent was for jurisdictions to take action on the determined information as soon as it was completed. Ms. Jerome said that Springfield's counsel had agreed with her analysis that there was no deadline for establishing the UGB and making the demonstration. She said the reference to immediate action was based on Springfield's intent to act quickly as the bill did not require immediate action. Mr. Zelenka commented that the issue appeared to be whether or not to conduct analyses of commercial and industrial lands in addition to the residential study required by the bill. He asked why the additional studies MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page 3 Work Session were recommended. Ms. Gardner said a comprehensive assessment was recommended because it was important to have all of the information available when making land use decisions and having only residential land information might comply with HB 3337, but would not provide the clear data points necessary for mixed use planning. She said conducting the assessments together provided an integrated, comprehensive look at all lands within the UGB. Mr. Zelenka asked if the end result of the analyses would be rezoning some land to more appropriate designations. He gave neighborhoods around the university as examples where seven-story buildings were adjacent to single-family homes and hoped that rezoning could allow for a better transition. Ms. Gardner said that rezoning or redesignating was not within the scope of the comprehensive assessment, but could be a subsequent task. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to initiate a Comprehensive Lands Assessment based on the key elements in the attached pro- ject outline. The City Manager will fund this work through a combination of fund- ing strategies including, but not limited to, State grants and existing resources in- cluding the reserve for revenue shortfall. Ms. Taylor stated she would not support the motion. She said the City had already allowed rezoning from housing to industrial when a developer requested it. She did not think that rezoning actions, such as in neighborhoods around the University, were depending on a comprehensive assessment. Ms. Bettman said that Springfield was permitting building at half of allowable densities on residential lands. She said a "pretend" UGB based on jurisdictional lines would have to be created for purposes of conducting a buildable lands analysis. She said Springfield had rewritten its comprehensive plan and was vying for 50 percent of the population, even though population projections from Lane County were not available. She questioned how a UGB could be drawn based on jurisdictional boundaries when those boundaries did not exist in the comprehensive plan. Ms. Jerome replied that the dividing line between Eugene and Springfield was clearly defined and a meaningful analysis would consider a UGB that was not expanded and only changed by the dividing line between the jurisdictions. Ms. Bettman said that using a theoretical UGB violated Goal 2 requiring use of existing, adopted provisions in the comprehensive plan to make decisions, which was why she believed the UGB should be established before moving forward with other steps. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion to direct the City Manager to proceed immediately with the steps to comply with House Bill 3337: first, establish an urban growth boundary consistent with the jurisdictional area of responsibility specified in the comprehensive plan and, second, demonstrate, as required by ORS 197.296, that the comprehensive plan provides sufficient buildable lands within an urban growth boundary established pursuant to Statewide Planning Goals to accommodate estimated house needs for 20 years. Ms. Bettman stated that her motion reflected the minimum required by the bill. Ms. Taylor said she would support the motion. She urged councilors to think of the money the City needed for street repairs and other things before spending money that was not necessary. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Zelenka re-stated Ms. Jerome's explanation that Interstate 5 would be the dividing line for a redrawn UGB and the analysis would be done based on that assumption; once the analysis was completed the new UGB would be created along that dividing line. Ms. Jerome said if the analysis determined that such a UGB would not accommodate the City's needs for 20 years it would be necessary to adopt measures to do so. Mr. Clark asked if relying on a comprehensive plan that included Eugene and Springfield until a new one was adopted would conflict with goal compliance if the study was based only on jurisdictional boundaries but the acknowledged UGB was larger. Ms. Jerome said the City could conduct any study it wished and would not be an adopted product; therefore, there would be no conflict. She said that data must be available to support a new UGB. The motion to amend failed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in support. Mr. Zelenka asked why the UGB could not simply be divided into two parts according to HB 3337, then using the new UGB for the study. Ms. Jerome replied that in order to adopt a new UGB that divided the jurisdictions, the comprehensive plan would need to be amended and in order to do that there had to be goal findings which were required to show consistency with State law and goals. She said the current data regarding supply and demand related to a different UGB. Ms. Bettman stated that the bill superseded State law and findings could be that the adjustment was required in order to be compliant with the bill. She said since a jurisdictional UGB was not being created first all of the analysis would be speculative and based on a "pretend" UGB. She objected to combining the tasks. Mayor Piercy remarked that there were differences of opinion, but legal council had provided advice and staff would comply with the council's direction. She said the reason to conduct a comprehensive lands assessment was to plan for Eugene's future. She said how that information was used would involve many different perspectives and political points of view. Mr. Zelenka said he was not interested in expanding the UGB, but wanted to look at policies to reinvigorate, reuse, and redevelop land within the UGB. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council and convened a meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency. B. WORK SESSION: Review of Draft Request for Proposals for 10th and Charnelton Development Site Ms. Jones stated that the council had directed staff to work with Beam Development to make the redevelop- ment of the Centre Court and Washburne properties a reality and to prepare a draft request for proposals (RFP) for the sale and development of the 10th and Charnelton development site. She said good progress was being made with the Beam project, but the total cost could not yet be predicted. She recommended deferring issuance of the RFP and committing more of the City's limited financial resources until reasonable cost estimates for the Beam project were available. She said that would also allow staff to focus its efforts on the Beam project. She said if serious interest in the 10th and Charnelton site was expressed that would be brought directly to the council. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page 5 Work Session Denny Braud of the Planning and Development Department reported that the draft RFP had been presented to the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC), which unanimously recommended deferring the RFP until a binding agreement with Beam was established, the future of purchase options on downtown properties was resolved, and possibly the site became more marketable because of downtown code revisions. He said there was still strong interest in issuing the RFP and there was also some interest in the site; if serious interest in the site did materialize staff would return to the council for release of the RFP. Ms. Taylor agreed with the proposal to defer the RFP because it was important to move forward with the Beam project before beginning something else. She hoped for consideration of using a portion of the 10th and Charnelton site for a park and suggested that the pit could be filled with dirt and used temporarily as a community garden, which would improve the appearance for the Olympic Trials. In response to a question from Mr. Poling, Mr. Braud said the options on the Centre Court and Washburne properties expired on March 24, 2008, and he expected to make significant progress and have cost estimates on the Beam project before that date. Mr. Poling questioned delaying the RFP when there would shortly be some resolution of the Beam project and there was interest in the 10th and Charnelton site. He preferred to issue the RFP instead of waiting. Ms. Solomon asked if current downtown code issues would affect the Beam project and when the downtown zoning review project would be implemented. Mr. Braud replied that the downtown code review process was currently under way. He said the Beam project would be primarily rehabilitation of an existing building and was not likely to face code issues. Ms. Solomon asked when the code revision process would be completed. Nan Laurence, of the Planning and Development Department, said that staff anticipated presenting three of the seven items to the council in mid-June 2008. She said that the items would need to go through a community involvement process and Planning Commission review before they went to the council. Ms. Bettman asked for confirmation that the council had the ability to create a variance or modify an existing code if there was a specific obstacle to a project. City Attorney Glenn Klein, replied that the council had the ability to change the code but was required to follow a process that included public hearings and Planning Commission review and recommendations. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the ERAC had steered the council wrong in the past and was a self-selected group of developers and vested interests. She suggested modifying the RFP by including a list of nearby parking structures and available capacity under Site Context and deleting references to positive financial return to the district that assumed participation of the Urban Renewal District. She agreed with Mr. Poling that there was no reason to delay issuing the RFP, which made no promise of urban renewal money for the project. Mr. Zelenka felt the recent election indicated that downtown was not a priority for many people and redevelopment should progress incrementally. He said there were many remaining downtown issues to address, such as purchase options and the zoning review, which could affect projects. He felt it was likely that the Beam proposal would require considerable subsidy by the Urban Renewal District and the limited funds that were available could be exhausted, leaving nothing for other projects. He supported the recommendation to delay the RFP. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Clark concurred with Mr. Zelenka and would support the recommendation. He was not opposed to a park on part of the 10th and Charnelton site. He agreed that the election message was to move forward incrementally and effectively and was pleased that the downtown zoning review was under way. He said completion of that work could improve the chances for a successful response to the RFP. He asked if Beam was making progress on solidifying its relationship with a potential tenant, as the requested extension of 90 days would go beyond the expiration date for purchase options. Mr. Braud said Beam was anticipating commitments from tenants within 30 days. He said the March 24 deadline was to provide notice and the City would have 90 days from the point of notice to actually purchase the properties. Mr. Pryor said he preferred to move forward quickly, but would reluctantly support the recommendation to defer the RFP. Ms. Bettman asked if Beam had requested the delay in issuing the RFP. Mr. Braud said he did not believe that was the case. Ms. Bettman questioned the reason for delaying the RFP. Ms. Jones replied that the issue was lack of information on the Beam project. She said staff wanted to ensure success of the Beam project without having a competitive project that left insufficient resources to move forward. She said the delay would not stop activity and staff continued to evaluate interest in the 10th and Charnelton site on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Bettman asserted that Beam was aware of the resources that were on the table and the council could decide what other resources it wished to make available at a later date for a particular project. She said that no incentives would be promised in the RFP and resources were not a reason to delay issuing it. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to move forward with the RFP with amendments to include a list of nearby parking structures and available parking ca- pacity and to remove references to positive financial returns for the Urban Renewal District and that the City release the RFP on March 1, 2008. Mr. Poling thanked the ERAC for its work, but disagreed with its recommendation on the RFP. He said if there was currently interest on the site the RFP should not be delayed. He would support the motion. Mr. Zelenka expressed concern that the Beam project would use all of the available urban renewal resources and there would be no money for other projects. He felt that downtown projects from this point forward would all require some level of subsidy. He suggested that small incremental increases to the Urban Renewal District spending limit could occur as projects came forward. Ms. Ortiz said she would support the motion in the interests of maintaining momentum on downtown redevelopment. She agreed that any increase in the spending limit should be referred to the voters. Ms. Taylor said she would support the motion, but was concerned with completing the Beam proposal. She was disappointed with lack of support for a community garden. She asked if issuing the RFP would affect the Beam project. Mr. Braud said the RFP would not affect Beam. Ms. Bettman clarified that her motion to move the RFP release date to March 1 assumed that each date would be moved back a month and projects would be considered in July. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Pryor cautioned that there was still the possibility that the Beam project could use all of the urban renewal resources. The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Pryor, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Zelenka voting in oppo- sition. The meeting adjourned at 1:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page 8 Work Session