Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes - 12/08/04 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall December 8, 2004 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papd, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling. Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. ACTION: Resolution 4819 Denying a Request to Amend the Laurel Hill Plan Land Use Diagram to Re-designate Property Identified As Tax Lots 199, 200, 300, Assessor's Map 18-03-03-23 from Low-Density Residential to Commercial and Denying a Request to Rezone the Property from R-1 Low Density Residential to C-2 Community Commercial Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to adopt Resolution 4819 denying a request to amend the Laurel Hill Plan Land Use Diagram to re- designate property identified as tax lots 199, 200, 300, Assessor's Map 18- 03-03-23 from Low-Density Residential to Commercial and denying a re- quest to rezone the property from R-1 Low-Density Residential to C-2 Community Commercial. Mr. Papd noted that the council had discussed the neighborhood recommendation regarding a limited review at its meeting two days earlier. He said, based on the City's current inability to review its refinement plans, "holding landowners hostage" to such plans that could not be regularly updated was inappropriate. He asked if it would be possible to amend the motion so that it accepted the neighborhood's recommendation to conduct a limited review of the applicable refinement plan. Mayor Torrey asked legal counsel to respond. City Attorney Jerry Lidz recommended making a separate motion in this case. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to ask the Planning and De- velopment Department to conduct a limited review of the refinement plan with regards to this property and commercial designations in this area and to provide a recommendation to the City Council, through the Planning Commission, by July 1, 2005. Mr. Meisner said he would want to know the cost of such a review prior to voting upon it. He disputed that developers and landowners were being held hostage. He underscored that the applicant had sought an amendment to the refinement plan and it was subsequently denied. He averred this particular amendment had not met the criteria and this was not tantamount to holding anyone hostage. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Kelly liked the idea of going forward with such a study. He wished to see it considered within the context of the work program, noting that the council would be reviewing land use regulations regarding cell tower placement after January 1, 2005. He asked Mr. Pap6 if he would be amenable to tabling the item, noting that he would vote in opposition if the question was called at the present meeting. Mr. Pap6 disagreed, stating that the City was putting property owners and neighborhoods in conflict by not amending its refinement plans for 20 years. He wished to move things forward. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to table the motion. The mo- tion passed, 7:1; Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. B. ACTION: Resolution 4818 Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2004, and Ending June 30, 2005 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to approve Resolution 4818 adopting a Supplemental Budget; making appropriations for the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year beginning Julyl, 2004, and ending June 30, 2005. City Manager Dennis Taylor said he and Budget Manager Kitty Murdoch would be available to review the material and answer questions. In response to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Torrey affirmed that a public hearing had been held on this item. He said one speaker provided testimony. Mr. Kelly thanked staff for responding to his questions. He said they were answered well. Ms. Bettman opined that, given it was an $8 million budget, some summary for the public record should be necessary. She also thanked staff for answering her questions. Ms. Murdoch explained that the primary purpose of the first Supplemental Budget of every year was to reconcile all of the carry-over amounts from the previous year through several processes: the reserve for encumbrance, the capital carryover, and the audited beginning working capital reconciliation. She said funding for new programs and projects that were not completed in prior years was also reappropriated and new revenues such as grants and, in the case of capital, revenues expected to be received from inter- governmental agreements (IGAs) were recognized in the budget. She stated that in the General Fund the marginal beginning working capital reconciliation was exceptionally high, $7.8 million, because of the settlement of the Qwest lawsuit and all of the deferred revenues it entailed. She outlined the components of the reconciliation and reappropriations. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. C. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Cell Towers, and amending Section 9.9750 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved that the City Council adopt MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 2004 Page 2 Work Session Council Bill 4886, an ordinance concerning cell towers specifically the ver- sion of the ordinance that amends Eugene Code 9.5750 subsection 11 to require the City Manager to retain a consultant to verify statements in ap- plications and to charge a fee sufficient to cover the cost of retaining the consultant. Mr. Lidz clarified that he had placed a slightly modified version of the ordinance that simply corrected a typographical error in the caption referring to the Eugene Code number. Mr. Kelly thanked staff for the quick turnaround. He called processing of cell tower applications a very technical evaluation process and averred it would benefit from analysis by a knowledgeable consultant. He thought it important to put this into place at the present meeting and suggested it could be modified when revisited. Mr. Meisner indicated he would likely support the motion. He asked if there were many choices for consultants in the area. Planning Division Manager Susan Muir replied that there were no such consultants in the Eugene area. She stated that the Planning and Development Department (PDD) had found one consultant in North Carolina and this was the one being employed on the current application. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to direct the City Manager to recommend to the City Council additional amendments to Eugene Code 9.5750 regarding increased setbacks, more specific criteria for granting a variance if a variance was legally required, and minimum requirements and conditions for a provider to meet in order to be eligible to construct a cell tower in the City. Mr. Meisner asked what cost was involved in the motion. City Manager Taylor said the first thing that staff would do would be to return with a PDD work plan and discuss how this item weighed against the other items in the work plan. Ms. Nathanson was not inclined to support the motion. She supported the recommendation of the Planning Commission, which she felt looked at the complexity of the situation and the inter-relationships between the different parts of the code and its relationship with federal and State law and understood it. She averred there would be significant costs to reviewing the code. She advised against picking out a few sections of the code for revision as they might not meld with the code in its entirety and all of the different elements of the technology it governed. She commended the information provided by staff, stating that it was excellent. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Ms. Muir explained that no time had been scheduled on the tentative agenda for the PDD work program because staff was waiting for more clarity on the periodic review from the State. City Manager Taylor added that he would like to have the benefit of the Council Goals retreat so that could be reflected in the specifics of the proposal for PDD. He projected that it would be scheduled in March 2005. Mr. Kelly asked the City Manager if he could commit to that date. City Manager Taylor stated that he could. Mr. Kelly offered a friendly amendment that would re-craft the motion to MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 2004 Page 3 Work Session say "include this in the list when the Planning Division work plan was re- viewed." Ms. Bettman did not accept the friendly amendment. Ms. Solomon echoed the comments of Ms. Nathanson. She felt a piecemeal review would make the ordinance vulnerable to unintended consequences. She thought the message was clear from the Planning Commission because the issue had been clearly identified as needing to be comprehensively reviewed. Mr. Papd agreed with Ms. Nathanson as well. He recommended that if there would be a review, it should be a comprehensive review of it in its entirety. Ms. Bettman thought the council had asked for such a review. She asserted that staff had responded to many questions by indicating they did not know the answer or did not have the resources to find it. She felt, in terms of what she had heard at the December 6 meeting, people were concerned about the resources involved in a comprehensive review and decided to pull those items that seemed to be of greatest concern out of the ordinance and review them. She said she would be happy to add on language that would indicate that it would include recommendations from staff for areas of further review. She also was amenable to changing the motion to call for a comprehensive review of the ordinance. Ms. Muir reiterated that staff had tried to meet the assignment as best it could, given existing resources. She reported that the City Attorney's office had indicated that a quick surgical fix to address setback issues and a limited review would be workable. She said the City Attorney's office had prepared most of the technical work on the item because they had the resources to do so. Ms. Bettman withdrew her motion. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to undertake a comprehen- sive review that included these issues and any other issues recommended by staff and that the City Manager return to the council with the scope of this work. Mayor Torrey asked how this motion differed from the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Ms. Muir replied that it was the same as that recommendation. Mr. Kelly said he was inclined to oppose the motion. He thought, on balance, the ordinance was reasonable in many areas. He supported taking a more surgical approach. In response to a question from Mr. Papd, City Manager Taylor said the council, should it not pass this motion, would pass the minor surgical items in the code and then they would be an item for consideration in the PDD priority setting within the context of its work plan. Ms. Taylor preferred the first motion, but said she would support the one on the table. She thought it important to take care of the more urgent elements of the cell tower ordinance. Ms. Nathanson opined that a better order of events would be to return with a scope of work and then to undertake a comprehensive review of the ordinance. She did not perceive the urgency as towers were not being built every month and, in fact, were being constructed very infrequently. She averred the ordinance was working to discourage the placement of new cell towers. Ms. Nathanson stated that the motion sought to propose solutions when the problems were unclear. She MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 2004 Page 4 Work Session thought the experts, the Planning Commissioners, the professionals in the field, and the planners in the PDD, should determine what solutions were needed to achieve the City's objectives. She felt the council was reacting to a particular solution presented to it, while evidence on paper indicated there was not a problem. Ms. Bettman restated the motion. She indicated that she moved to direct the City Manager to move forward with scoping a comprehensive review of the cell tower ordinance to include the three aforementioned issues and any other issues staff identified as needing to be reviewed. The motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Meisner voting in opposition. D. WORK SESSION: Draft Parks, Recreation, And Open Space Comprehensive Plan Mayor Torrey thanked Ms. Nathanson and the committee for diligently working over the past few months on the plan. He wished to particularly thank Ms. Nathanson for the effort she put forward on behalf of the City of Eugene with regard to Parks and Open Space. Ms. Nathanson asked committee members who were present to identify themselves with a show of hands. She thanked them for coming to the meeting. Ms. Nathanson stated that there were hundreds of line items in the report representing millions of dollars in the draft document. She said the committee had no illusion that the council would ;;wave a magic wand" and implement the entire report, but rather, consider the document to represent a vision for the next 20 years. Regarding the draft, Ms. Nathanson called particular attention to the variety of public involvement methods utilized over a period of two years, noted in Chapter 1 of the document. She commended staff for providing the ;;most comprehensive review of funding sources" she had ever seen. She pointed out that it would be difficult to absolutely follow a priority list and encouraged the council to be open to flexibility in funding and in project order because the City should be prepared to take advantage of opportunities as they arise. She also recommended the City be open to collaboration. Ms. Nathanson noted that the committee had met on December 7 and had agreed upon several editorial changes which would be incorporated in the final version, including revised language referring to systems development charges (SDCs) to ensure it was consistent with current rules, some numbers clean up, and some work on parallel phrasing and jargon. She added that there would be information to help interpret Map 3, which showed a lack of access to parks, explaining that it was not just a lack of parks but access issues having to do with parks. Ms. Nathanson said a legal review of the plan would be conducted prior to adoption, specifically in regard to the area covered by the plan as it went beyond the city limits of Eugene. Continuing, Ms. Nathanson compared this plan with the previous one. She underscored that the draft plan held new concepts such as diversity, inclusiveness, partnerships, volunteers, consideration of maintenance and operating costs, sustainability, restoring the environment, new ways of classifying, counting and planning parks, and connectivity. Ms. Nathanson thanked the committee for coming together for two years and commended the staff for the breadth of knowledge and the dedication they demonstrated to their work. She felt the entire committee had worked with dedication and creativity. She related that many members of the committee indicated their wish to continue working with the City as the plan moved through additional MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 2004 Page 5 Work Session public review and implementation. Ms. Nathanson said the committee tried to come up with a plan to meet the needs of the individuals and live up to the aspirations of the community as a healthy, active and beautiful place to live, work, and play. Andrea Riner, Parks and Open Space Division Planning Manager, provided a brief overview of the plan. She explained that Priority 1 indicated a project that would be tackled soon, Priority 2 indicated a project to be considered within the next 10 years, and Priority 3 indicated a project to be considered within the next 20 years. She noted that only the Priority 1 projects had been %osted out." Ren~e Grube, Recreation Services Director for the Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department, called the document a tremendous community involvement process that reemphasized the importance of parks and programs to the community. She added that the plan was different from the 1989 document in that it included recreation programs and services. Mr. Kelly complimented staff and the committee and, in particular, the public that was involved. He said the document was thorough and well-organized. He liked that it began with goals and values and looked at levels of service. He stated that the community's residents often indicated that parks and open spaces were very important. Mr. Kelly wanted to begin developing next steps, as the plan was a ~huge undertaking." He noted that the total projected cost for the Priority 1 projects was $128 million. He thought it likely that more prioritization of that list would have to occur. He added that acquisition was his first priority. Ms. Taylor agreed that acquisition should be a priority. She hoped that the plan would be brought to every neighborhood for input. She also hoped that land that needed ~to be saved" was also part of the plan. Ms. Riner stated that the committee analyzed the existing inventory of natural areas and discussed the criteria for land acquisition. She said natural resource values and connectivity for wildlife were a part of the criteria. Mr. Pap6 complimented the work of Ms. Nathanson and the committee. He questioned the City's ability to acquire more park lands when the City could not afford to maintain what it already owned. He noted that maintenance costs were still paid out of the General Fund. Ms. Nathanson responded that finding such funding would be a challenge for the City Council to face. She emphasized that the plan looked at installation and construction of parks from the perspective of needing less maintenance once a park was established. Ms. Grube added that maintenance and operations costs were included with cost projections for each capital project. Ms. Bettman also lauded the committee and the plan. She said it would be necessary to come up with %ome kind of a filter" so that staff and the council could determine what was doable. She commented that every time the City built a new road it was saddled with the maintenance and operation costs for it. She asked how the committee looked at SDCs and wondered if there was any interaction with the Public Works Rates Advisory Committee (RAC). Ms. Riner responded that the list of prioritized projects would be submitted to the RAC so that it could review those issues. She stressed that when looking at the $128 million cost it was important to recognize that it was not expected that the City of Eugene would pay the entire cost. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 2004 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Papd, moved to extend the discussion by ten minutes. The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Taylor voting no. Mr. Poling thanked everyone who was involved in developing the plan. He noted that he was particularly concerned with the areas of the City that were underserved by parks, such as his and Mr. Pap6's wards. Ms. Solomon thanked the committee and Ms. Nathanson. She stated that while she was not opposed to the acquisition of park lands, it was important to remember that when land was taken from the private sector and placed into the public sector, the property tax revenue from the land was lost. Mr. Meisner remarked that, though his education and career included graduate degrees in Law and Library Science and involved planning, he sometimes hated plans. He observed that the City of Eugene did a lot of planning but not a lot of doing. He hoped this plan would not be relegated to a shelf. Mr. Meisner said he was happy to see maintenance costs included. He hoped that the City Manager would look at the artificial division between Parks and Open Space and Recreation at some point. As an example, he commented that it was never clear who to talk to in regard to the Washington/Jefferson Park because of that division. Additionally, Mr. Meisner hoped attention would be paid to this document and its planning and other elements such as the Goal 5 study and stormwater acquisition for stream corridors. Mayor Torrey reiterated the council's gratitude for the work done to create the draft. He underscored the necessity of partnerships to bring the plan to fruition and suggested such partners could include school districts, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the United Front lobbying effort. He noted that the City had been able to expand its ability to provide services as a result of what it had done with the Bethel and 4J School Districts. He pointed out the partnerships that had been forged in the creation of the West Eugene Wetlands Project. He underscored the importance of getting the Rachel Carson Education Center in a funding pattern when members of the City Council went to Washington, DC, as part of the United Front lobby, as it was a park-like setting, tourist and education-oriented, and a place where a person who was not necessarily activity-oriented would feel welcome. Mayor Torrey said, from an efficiency standpoint, it was important to look at such things as all-weather surface facilities. He stressed that such facilities at the high schools offered the opportunity to get 2-1/2 times more use than a grass field because of how affected the latter was by the weather. He called attention to the fact that the City was going to lose seven full-sized soccer fields by the end of March 2005. He expressed concern that there would be no place for local youth to play soccer. Mr. Pap~ concurred. Noting he was surprised that the planned area took in land outside of the UGB, Mr. Pap~ asked how this was to be accomplished. Ms. Riner replied that such parks were included as a result of the Rivers to Ridges recommendations, which had been approved by all of the jurisdictions. E. WORK SESSION AND ACTION: Draft Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program Project List Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to approve the Eugene's pro- ject list in the draft FY2005-2007 Metropolitan Transportation Improve- MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 2004 Page 7 Work Session ment Program. Mr. Kelly opined that because of the difference between State and federal regulations, the TransPlan had been bifurcated into the federally required Regional Transportation Plan and the State-required Transporta- tion System Plan (TSP). He felt the impact of it was that the federally required Regional Transportation Plan was being amended without any discussion or advisory votes by the individual elected governments. He disagreed with the assertion that what was being considered at the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) was a minor amendment. He said as he was reading through the material, he had difficulty understanding it, though he felt %lose to the transportation process." He noted that a letter from an attorney had been submitted indicating concern that some of the federally required public involvement was not followed in this process. Additionally, he thought the City Council should have had more of an opportunity to review it. Mr. Kelly asked if any of the funding for the 3rd/4th Connector was flexible and able to be shifted to street preservation. Public Works Department Engineer Mark Schoening, explained that it was a project approved by the City Council with the adoption of the capital budget, funded with systems development charges (SDCs) and assessments. As such, he stated that it was dedicated funding. Mr. Kelly asked if any of the funding for the proposed Chad Drive extension project was flexible. Mr. Schoening replied that it was being funded with assessments, SDCs, and federal Surface Transportation Program-Urban (STP-U) funds that were allocated and approved by the MPC. Ms. Bettman interjected that it the STP-U allocation was $900,000. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to drop the Chad Drive project from the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program. Ms. Bettman indicated she would support the motion. She called it a %mall piece of the iceberg." She asserted that there was $2,231,000 in STP-U money that could all be legally used for maintenance and preservation. She said the council was on record as indicating that all flexible funding that came through the Lane Council of Governments as the local metropolitan policy organization (MPO) and the MPC would be prioritized for maintenance and preservation. Mr. Pap~ asked who participated in putting the matrix together. Mr. Schoening explained that the MPO and the MPC allocated the federal funds that came to the region. He said the Transportation Planning Committee (TPC) had put together a process and categories of funding that were reviewed and approved by the MPC. He stated that each jurisdiction competed and submitted projects and the projects were scored in a competitive process. He clarified that there were four categories of funding, such as modernization. He said the funds were already allocated and, should the council choose not to accept those funds, the funds would go back to the MPC to reallocate to the next modernization project in priority order and this would not necessarily be a Eugene project. In response to another question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Schoening stated that a project made it on the list as a result of careful review of available projects and the priority system and set forth the projects staff felt would score the highest in the competitive process. Ms. Nathanson said she had intended to ask what placed the project as a priority on the list but she now understood that the money was not Eugene's money and the area could just lose the funding. She felt unsure what the purpose of supporting the motion would be other than to say that the City of Eugene did not want any road improvements. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 2004 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Meisner indicated he would be unlikely to support the motion. He recalled that when the Transportation System Maintenance Fee (TSMF) had been repealed, the council had clearly directed staff to work with the County on a more equitable way of sharing its Road Fund and, though it had not gone anywhere, the County had indicated it would be open to funding projects. He suggested the City be more aggressive and submit almost all of its needed preservation and maintenance projects to the County. Ms. Solomon also wished to approach the County with five high priority projects involving the preservation and maintenance of local streets. She indicated she would be willing to testify at public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners and participate in the process however she was needed. She opposed the motion because the money would be returned to the general pool. Ms. Taylor remarked that losing the funding was not a good enough reason to go through with the project. Mayor Torrey said he would vote against the motion in the event of a tie. He stated that the Chad Drive extension was a good project from the perspectives of the cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County. He acknowledged there was a backlog of maintenance issues but averred that to stop traffic from flowing appropriately through different venues in north Eugene, an area with the highest level of congestion of any part of the City, just to make a political statement was "foolish." He advised against supporting the motion and expressed that he hoped the new Mayor would maintain her independence. He stressed the importance of working together as partners in the MPC and underscored that we are a system and not just a city. Mr. Kelly felt the motion was hardly a political statement. Rather, he thought it was a policy statement about what the priority needs of maintenance and preservation were. He disagreed that the money would be lost to another transportation project should the Chad Drive project be rejected. He related that he had spoken with MPC Chair Bettman and she had indicated that the MPC could redirect that funding "anywhere they wanted with a vote." Mr. Meisner hoped that the council would look carefully at the connection between some kinds of improve- ments and maintenance needs. He noted the work on the Ferry Street Bridge which, though an improvement, would help preserve the bridge for decades. He thought the Chad Drive project was in that category. Ms. Bettman reiterated that while the MPC dealt with approximately $185 million, the flexible funding amounted to $2,231,000. She said this was the only money that could be spent on maintenance and preservation. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to substitute a motion that the City of Eugene resubmit all of the City's projects that were competing for STP-U money under a category of maintenance and preservation so that the City could still compete for this money but it would be allocated to maintenance and preservation projects. Mr. Pap~ opined that 20 minutes was not enough time to adequately consider the MTIP. He recommended the City Council include it as an additional agenda item at another work session. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to table the item until January 19, 2005. Ms. Bettman felt that the council lacked much of the information it needed. She reiterated her opposition to MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 2004 Page 9 Work Session using STP-U money for the bikeway project. Ms. Taylor supported tabling the item. She said more time was needed to consider the MTIP. Mr. Schoening requested the opportunity to speak. He stated that the two projects the council had been discussing, the Chad Drive extension and the Monroe Street/Friendly Street Bikeway, were projects that were already in the MTIP and had already been approved for funding by the MPC as well as projects that had been in the CIP and moved forward. The motion passed 6:2; Mr. Poling and Mr. Papd voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 2004 Page 10 Work Session