Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCAgenda-3/08/04Mtg ~City Council City of Eugene 777 Pearl Street, Room 105 Eugene, Oregon 97401-2793 (541) 682-5010 (541) 682-5414 FAX (541) 682-5045 TTY www. ci.eugene.or, us EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA March 8, 2004 5:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION McNutt Room, City Hall 7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING and MEETING OF THE EUGENE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY Council Chamber, City Hall 777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon 97401 Meeting of March 8, 2004; His Honor James D. Torrey Presiding. Councilors Bonny Bettman, President George Poling, Vice President David Kelly Scott Meisner Nancy Nathanson Gary Pap~ Jennifer Solomon Betty Taylor 5:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION McNutt Room, City Hall 5:30 p.m. A. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER 5:50 p.m.* B. ACTION: Approval of a Motion to Change the Date to Consider Adopting an Ordinance that Amends the Riverfront Research Park Urban Renewal District Plan Eugene City Council Agenda: March 8, 2004 L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040308\A040308P.doc 5:55 p.m.* C. WORK SESSION: Amendments to the Eugene Code Pertaining to the Procedures and Assessments of Public Improvements 6:40 p.m.* D. WORK SESSION: Central Area Transportation Study * Time approximate 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL MEETING and MEETING OF THE EUGENE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY City Council Chamber, City Hall 1. PUBLIC FORUM 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes: - January 26, 2004, Work Session - February 9, 2004, City Council Meeting - February 11, 2004, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Approval of Resolution 4787 of the City of Eugene, Oregon Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of the City's General Obligation Parks and Open Spaces Bonds in a Principal Amount of Not More Than $6,305,000 D. Approval of Additional Community Development Block Grant Funds for Site Acquisition and Business Development Fund 3. PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION: Resolution 4788 Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2003 and Ending June 30, 2004 4. PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION: Resolution 1029 Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the Urban Renewal Agency of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2003, and Ending June 30, 2004 5. ACTION: Approval, Of Findings, And Recommendation From The Hearings Official and Adoption of an Ordinance Levying Assessments for Paving, Curbs, Gutters, Sidewalk, 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 (Contract #2004-08) (Job #4058) Eugene City Council Agenda: March 8, 2004 L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040308\A040308P.doc 6. ACTION: East Campus Plan Amendments An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram and the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study Diagram and Text; Amending Sections 9.8865 and 9.9570 of the Eugene Code 1971; Adding New Sections 9.4200, 9.4205, 9.4210, 9.4215, and 9.4220 to that Code; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date The Eugene City Council welcomes your interest in these agenda items. This meeting location is wheelchair- accessible. For the hearing impaired, FM assistive-listening devices are available or an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours' notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hours' notice. To arrange for these services, contact the receptionist at 682-5010. Telecommunications device for the deaf assistance is available at 682-5045. All council meetings are telecast live on Metro Television, Comcast channel 21, and rebroadcast later in the week. E1 Consejo de la Ciudad de Eugene aprecia su inter6s en estos asuntos de la agenda. E1 sitio de la reuni6n tiene acceso para sillas de ruedas. Hay accesorios disponibles para personas con afecciones del oido, o se les puede proveer un interprete avisando con 48 horas de anticipaci6n. Tambi6n se provee el servicio de interpretes en idioma espafiol avisando con 48 horas de anticipaci6n. Para reservar estos servicios llame a la recepcionista al 682-5010. Hay aparatos de telecomunicaci6n disponibles para ayudar a personas con obstrucciones del oido permanentes al tel6fono 682-5045. Todas las reumones del consejo estan gravados en vivo en Metro Television, canal 21 de Comcast y despues en la semana se pasan de nuevo. FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT THE COUNCIL COORDINATOR AT (541)682-5010. VISIT US ON THE WORLD WIDE WEB AT ~ CI. EUGENE. OR. US Eugene City Council Agenda: March 8, 2004 L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040308\A040308P.doc EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Public Forum Meeting Date: March 8, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 1 Department: City Manager's Office Staff Contact: Lynda Rose www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5017 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY This segment allows citizens the opportunity to express opinions and provide information to the council. Testimony presented during the Public Forum should be on city-related issues and should not address items which have already been heard by a Hearings Official, or are on the present agenda as a public hearing item. SUGGESTED MOTION No action is required; this is an informational item only. FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lynda Rose Telephone: 682-5017 Staff E-Mail: lynda.l.rose~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040308\S0403081.doc EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: March 8, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 2A Department: City Manager's Office Staff Contact: Lynda Rose www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5017 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the January 26, 2004, Work Session, February 9, 2004, City Council Meeting, and February 11, 2004, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A. January 26, 2004, Work Session B. February 9, 2004, City Council Meeting C. February 11, 2004, Work Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lynda Rose Telephone: 682-5017 Staff E-Mail: lynda.l.rose~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040308\S0403082A. doc ATTACHMENT A MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene Public Library January 26, 2004 5~30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT~ Gary Pap6, President; Nancy Nathanson, Vice President; Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon. Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. Items from the Mayor, City Council, and City Manager Ms. Taylor congratulated Kate O'Donnell and the Lane Library League for their progress in providing library services to Cottage Grove. Ms. Taylor reported that she attended the charette regarding a downtown civic center at the Atrium Building on January 22. She had been impressed by the caliber of the attendees and the work they had done. While she thought the City should have addressed the Land Use Board of Appeals remands first, she really liked the planning that was being done and the depth of knowledge being contributed. Mr. Pap6 had no items. Mr. Meisner reported that he, the City Manager, Planning Director Susan Muir, Planning staff, and several Planning Commissioners had attended the Smart Growth Conference in Portland the previous week, and he would provide the council with a written report. Mr. Meisner said he and the mayor attended the kick off for Readin' in the Rain that morning, and encouraged residents to participate in reading Ursula LaGuin's Lathe of Heaven. Mr. Poling had no items. Ms. Bettman asked about the progress of her inquiry regarding the progress made on the Parks Blocks Placemaking Study in terms of support for the Farmers Market and Saturday Market, and what remained to be done to foster those community assets in downtown. She also inquired about her request for information about the formation of local improvement districts to underwrite the costs of traffic calming. She wanted information on how such districts were formed and administered to be provided to the neighborhoods. Ms. Bettman commended those who organized the Martin Luther King Jr. March. She said there were approximately 500 people in attendance, about five times the number of those who marched the previous year. In company with City Manager Dennis Taylor and his wife, Joan, she had participated in the march MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 2004 Page 1 Work Session and found it an uplifting experience. She believed the community debate that occurred earlier in the year contributed to the overwhelmingly successful celebration. Ms. Solomon arrived. Mr. Kelly also commended the Martin Luther King, Jr. March and noted that a North Eugene High School student had read a very powerful poem. He also attended the ceremony that evening at the Hult Center, and thanked those who organized it. Ms. Solomon reported that Ms. Taylor was recently elected the chair of the Human Services Commission. Ms. Solomon reported that the grand opening of the new Bethel Safety Substation would take place the next day. City Manager Taylor thanked Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Kelly for their assistance in promoting the Hult Center with their performances in anticipation of the January 28 event. City Manager Taylor called attention to a flier regarding a briefing opportunity that was occurring the next day with County and City officials on a tentative settlement of the lawsuit between local governments and the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). He recognized Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson for his work in bringing the matter to a resolution. Mr. Poling encouraged all residents to vote on Ballot Measure 30 by the time ballots were due. Mayor Torrey said that he had been very impressed by the downtown charrette and the in-depth planning that had been done. Some great concepts had been brought up. He encouraged the council to read the report when it was available. Mayor Torrey also encouraged residents to participate in Readin' in the Rain. At the request of Mayor Torrey, Ms. Bettman assumed the chair. Mayor Torrey briefly left the meeting. B. WORK SESSION: Proposed Revisions to Traffic Ordinances City Manager Taylor introduced Judge Wayne Allen and Court Administrator Marilyn Nelson, who were present to discuss proposed changes to the City's traffic violations and criminal offenses ordinances. City Prosecutor Dan Barkovic, Traffic Enforcement Sergeant Derel Shulz, and Katheryn Brotherton of the City Attorney's Office were also present for the item. Ms. Nelson reviewed the proposed changes, noting that several were made to mirror changes in State law. Mayor Torrey reentered the meeting. Judge Allen discussed recent State law changes establishing higher mandatory minimum fines, which Eugene did not propose to adopt. He said that often those assessed with high fines were unable to pay them, and predicted that such fines would be difficult for the police, defendants, and counter staff. In the end, such fines would result in more people driving without insurance and be more costly for the community. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 2004 Page 2 Work Session Mayor Torrey solicited a first round of council questions and comments. Mr. Meisner acknowledged the State's need for revenue. However, he was not interested in a State law that merely raised the fines and removed a judge's authority to consider individual circumstances and needs. He commended the staff proposal and said he looked forward to the public hearing. He supported the suggestions offered by Judge Allen. He confirmed with Judge Allen that the City had the authority to deviate from State law. Mayor Torrey returned to the meeting and assumed the chair. Mr. Poling was pleased with the added language regarding trespassing. He said that the City must keep up with the times in terms of advancing technology. He thought the recommendations were moving the City in the right direction. He recalled that when the State had previously raised bail amounts, people were extremely angry, and were not hearing when they were cited that the bail schedule was determined by State law rather than the local jurisdiction. He hoped residents would keep in mind that the bail was the starting point, and not get upset at the officer issuing a citation. Given an understanding judge and the proper circumstances, Mr. Poling said, the bail would be reduced. He too looked forward to the public hearing. Ms. Nathanson believed the proposals before the council were ready to be considered by the public. She said the State's objective was increasing revenue, but the City's objective was to improve safety for the citizens. She thought Judge Allen had developed creative approaches to increasing education in the community, and thought the proposals showed good sense as well as sensitivity. Mr. Papd concurred with the remarks of Ms. Nathanson about the City's goal of increasing safety on the streets. He asked Judge Allen to consider what could be done to stop repeat red light runners. Judge Allen acknowledged the problem and said he did not know the answer. However, he recommended that the traffic team be at full strength at all times and commended the leadership of Sergeant Derel Schulz. He thought the increased fines discourage people. He noted that there were few repeat red light runners, while there were many people who repeatedly receive speeding tickets. Mr. Papd thought "inappropriate behavior" at a sporting event seemed a little broad for a criminal offense. Ms. Nelson referred Mr. Papd to the first page of the ordinance, which was specific about the types of behaviors involved. Ms. Brotherton indicated that the language in question was taken directly from State law. Mr. Barkovic pointed out the subsections already described conduct that were separate crimes under State and City law, such as harassment and disorderly conduct. He believed the rationale was to take existing prohibitions and add the authority of a sports official to enforce those laws without the need for a separate victim to come forward. The definitions were useful in defining the conduct. Only sub (b) was somewhat new to Eugene; he believed that there were rules to define that conduct. Mayor Torrey asked about fines levied against those incapable of paying the entire fine, and if the City would be responsible for making up the difference. Ms. Nelson indicated the City paid the State portion and then bore the burden of the uncollectible fine. Mayor Torrey asked Ms. Nelson to contact the Gold Beach City Administrator about potential legislative changes as he did not think the City should suffer the financial consequences. Ms. Taylor asked if there were already laws covering sporting events. She also questioned the use of the phrase "inappropriate behavior," as she considered it vague. She wanted to know what constituted "lewd gestures." MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 2004 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Bettman agreed with Judge Allen about the need to ensure the traffic team was at full strength. She noted the Police Commission's support for that priority following its community survey, which indicated strong community concern about the topic of traffic safety. She agreed with the need for judicial discretion. Ms. Bettman was also interested in the subject raised by the mayor, and confirmed with Ms. Nelson that the State had raised the unitary assessment amount. Ms. Bettman asked if the City's decision to adopt a higher fee schedule would result in more uncollectible fines. She wanted to know more about that before the hearing, as well as the budgetary impact of the proposals. Ms. Bettman asked if any other Oregon communities decided not to adopt the new State minimums. Ms. Nelson said not to her knowledge. Judge Allen said that the issue was a source of frustration for all Oregon judges. At an Oregon Municipal Judges convention, the judges had been briefed on the legislative action. None of them favored the legislation, which did not make sense to them. However, all the judges assumed that they had no choice, which was why it had taken Eugene so long to suggest that there was another approach. He said that if Eugene took the recommended approach, he would consider writing to other Oregon municipal judges and let them know that they had a choice. Ms. Bettman suggested that if a large number of municipalities decided against adopting the mandatory minimums, the only effect of the legislation was to increase the fees the State received from municipalities. Ms. Bettman asked under what authority the City could refuse to adopt the mandatory minimums. She assumed the issue was governed by the State. Ms. Brotherton indicated the issue was governed by OCT 2.477, regarding the City's delegation of authority to a municipal court judge to establish bails, fines, and penalties, as long as they were within the maximums set by State law. She said the statute stipulated the mandatory minimums, or base penalties, could not be reduced more than 25 percent. The statutes contained an explicit provision that allowed cities to adopt their own base penalties, and thus they would not be subject to the statute. Ms. Brotherton believed legal counsel reached a reasonable interpretation of a somewhat clear law. Ms. Bettman asked if the City could be challenged by the State on the issue. Judge Allen said it was possible, but he did not think it mattered to the State as long as it continued to receive its assessment. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation that staff brought the item to the council. He found the explanation clear and thorough and commended staff and Judge Allen for recognizing the importance of judicial flexibility. Even more than the dollar amount, he would regret the loss of the City's alternative service programs. City Manager Taylor indicated the public hearing and possible action was scheduled for February 9, 2004. C. WORK SESSION: Hospital Property Update City Manager Taylor introduced Planning and Development Department Director Tom Coyle. Mr. Coyle provided the staff presentation, first briefly reviewing the history of the item before the council. He called the council's attention to correspondence between Roy Orr of McKenzie-Willamette/Triad and City staff, and concluded from that correspondence that there were no hospital development opportunities in the preferred geographic area. He invited questions. Mayor Torrey asked what staff wished the council and mayor to do. Mr. Coyle said that staff would need direction from the council about any further incentives it wished to discuss. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Kelly believed the council had done a good job in expressing its interest in having McKenzie- Willamette/Triad in the community and had set aside funding for incentives as well as modified the Land Use Code to permit a hospital to locate in more zones than any other uses he could think of. He said the welcome mat had been rolled out. He hoped that McKenzie-Willamette/Triad would respond to the City, and he believed it would be useful if the hospital could be clearer about what it wanted. Mr. Kelly noted the letter from Mr. Orr did not indicate why the 2nd Avenue and Chambers Street site would not work as a hospital location. Mr. Coyle said that the hospital's criteria were the size of property, timing to market, and access. Mr. Kelly maintained the 2nd and Chambers site met those criteria. He believed it was sufficiently large, could come to market relatively quickly, and had excellent access. Mr. Kelly asked if the City had continued to use the consultant it hired to assist in the hospital siting process since the production of his final report. Mr. Coyle said no. He noted that the consultant had identified three sites, one outside the preferred area. He believed the sites that had been identified all had barriers associated with them. Mr. Meisner thanked City Manager Taylor and staff for the letter of December 18 to McKenzie- Willamette/Triad regarding the City's willingness to help McKenzie-Willamette/Triad. He too believed the 2nd Avenue and Chambers Street site met the criteria cited by Mr. Coyle to a much greater degree than the site preferred by McKenzie-Willamette/Triad. Mr. Meisner said he understood anecdotally that doctors were not interested in the 2nd and Chambers site, but that did not match what he heard from doctors and medical groups. Those parties indicated the site worked for them. Mr. Meisner suggested the potential that a tax increment district could be formed at the 2nd and Chambers site, offering redevelopment potential for doctors and medical groups. Speaking to Mr. Kelly's concerns, Mr. Meisner suggested that if the hospital was not looking for a site that met the council's criteria, the consultant had no role, which he found unfortunate. He wanted a new hospital to locate in Eugene but did not know how that would happen. Mr. Meisner acknowledged that McKenzie-Willamette/Triad might want assistance with its preferred site, but it was outside the scope of the resolution. City Manager Taylor reported that he had spoken to Roy Orr of McKenzie-Willamette/Triad about the City's support for the 2nd and Chambers site and had clarified the range of incentives available to McKenzie-Willamette/Triad. Subsequent conversations with Mr. Orr indicated that McKenzie- Willamette/Triad preferred a site not in the area preferred by the council. City Manager Taylor asked the council if it wanted to confine hospital siting to the incentive area, or would staff be exceeding council direction to talk with McKenzie-Willamette/Triad about incentives for other sites. Mr. Meisner reiterated that if the site was outside the preferred area, it was outside the scope of council's resolution offering incentives. Mr. Pap6 asked the council to keep in mind that there was no longer a McKenzie-Willamette Hospital. It was no longer a nonprofit community hospital, but rather a for-profit hospital. Mr. Pap6 asked if the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) remand of Springfield's PeaceHealth decision affected hospital siting in Eugene, and if so, how. Mr. Klein said he reviewed the decision in question, and did not think it affected the City's ordinance. It might affect how, at a later stage, LUBA could consider an appeal of a specific land use action. Once the hospital decided where it wanted to locate, it must demonstrate consistency with the transportation planning rule. He said that many factors were involved, MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 2004 Page 5 Work Session and noted that Springfield was appealing the decision to the Court of Appeals, who could reverse the ruling before it became an issue for Eugene. Mr. Pap6 asked about the status of the Certificate of Need. City Manager Taylor said the City was working with the State to clarify those rules. No decision had yet been made at the State level. Mayor Torrey indicated that the Cottage Grove hospital had been grandfathered and had no impact on McKenzie- Willamette/Triad. City Manager Taylor said that staff did not know what will be required for McKenzie- Willamette/Triad to locate in Eugene. Mr. Pap6 said that he had also heard anecdotal information that doctors favored the 2nd and Chambers site. He asked if the City had defined the minimum number of acres needed. City Manager Taylor indicated that the hospital wanted 25 to 35 acres. The fairgrounds were too large, too expensive, its acquisition would be too time-consuming, and access was an issue. He said that staff had been unable to find a site in the preferred area to match the criteria established by McKenzie-Willamette/Triad. Mr. Pap6 asked if the acreage could be reduced in size by structured parking, for example. Mr. Coyle said that the issue for the hospital was that the cost of multi-story parking was higher than the underlying cost of the real estate. He said that the hospital had been flexible and he thought it would consider such approaches. He suggested, however, that it was critical that the hospital have room to expand on the site it selected. Mr. Pap6 suggested a hospital overlay zone could be established. City Manager Taylor responded that could occur only in the preferred area, based on the council direction in place. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Pap6. She maintained that the medical community had said it would love the 2nd and Chambers site. She said that the message she received on the tour with Triad representatives was that the City needed to offer the hospital a proposal and the hospital would consider it. In the absence of that proposal, from the beginning the hospital had favored the Delta site for reasons she did not understand. She suggested that the City needed a ';Plan B" for 2nd and Chambers site to counter McKenzie-Willamette/Triad's ;;Plan A." She said the City should be in direct contact with the directors at McKenzie-Willamette/Triad. Ms. Nathanson said that many had discussed the accommodation of other accessory uses, and there seemed to be considerable potential for that in the 2nd and Chambers area. She asked if Mr. Coyle thought there was enough opportunity in the area for that to happen. Mr. Coyle said with redevelopment, the answer was yes. There were some vacant pieces of property in the area, but challenges as well. The area in question was predominantly industrial and it was close to the railroad. While the City could suggest to the hospital the circulation issues were addressed, that was not yet supported by a traffic impact analysis, which would be required of the development. He recalled little discussion of the industrial zones as they related to the hospital when the council made zone changes needed to accommodate the hospital. He said the redevelopment opportunity presented by a hospital would be significant. The City would be asking a quasi-residential medical use to be a pioneer in a major redevelopment project in an industrial area. Ms. Nathanson was enthusiastic about the 2nd and Chambers site but thought the council needed to keep in mind the need to site other medical uses nearby, which would consume considerable industrial land that was proximate to other industrial activities. When she considered the fairgrounds, she thought of the loss of the community, convention, and meeting facilities, some of which might be replaced and some of which might stay. She had hoped to have more discussion of that with the Lane Board of County Commissioners and the Lane County Fair Board. It was not mysterious to her why a hospital would be looking at the Delta site because of the proximity of clinics and doctors who could partner with the hospital. She encouraged the staff to continue discussions with the hospital. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 2004 Page 6 Work Session Mayor Torrey concurred with Ms. Nathanson. He said the incentives were in the preferred area. He said that the hospital was looking for a location and it was driving the decision. The council wanted it to go one place, and the hospital did not want to. He suggested the potential that the hospital could go to Glenwood as Springfield was buying options on property in that area, and Glenwood is in Springfield. He said a hospital in Glenwood would not be a Eugene hospital. He thought the community wanted a hospital with a full emergency facility. Mayor Torrey said that if the answer from McKenzie-Willamette/Triad was that it could not find a site in the preferred area, so be it. He thought more could be done to make the fairgrounds work, although he acknowledged the neighbors would object. However, he believed the neighbors would object no matter where the hospital located. Mayor Torrey spoke to those who asked, "Why not 2nd and cnamvers. He suggested the answer to some degree was in the uncertainty of being the first development in such an area. He reiterated the site was what the City wanted, not what McKenzie-Willamette/Triad wanted. Mayor Torrey called for a second round of comments from the council. Noting the council was scheduled to go into executive session, Mr. Kelly did not think anything that had been said prevented the council from discussing the issues involved in open session. Mr. Kelly shared Ms. Nathanson's concerns about the potential loss of industrial land but pointed out that the industrial vacancy rate was currently not high. He said the Metro Partnership was not enthusiastic about the development potential of the land in question, and he did not think the City would be losing out on other industrial development opportunities if the site was occupied by a hospital. Speaking to comments that McKenzie-Willamette/Triad was considering a Glenwood location, Mr. Kelly pointed out that Glenwood was also largely zoned industrial and if the hospital found the industrial nature of the 2nd and Chambers undesirable it should find Glenwood undesirable as well. Mr. Kelly liked Ms. Bettman's suggestion for a ~Plan B." He said the council should flesh out such a proposal and begin to develop the actual boundaries for a tax increment district, for example. Mr. Kelly pointed out the hospital could proceed with its development plans tomorrow if it wished to locate outside the incentive area. Mr. Meisner believed LUBA's decision regarding the PeaceHealth plan amendments had relevance for the hospital's preferred site. The intersections in the vicinity were also near capacity and constituted major transportation barriers to the development. Mr. Meisner said that while a smaller site might increase the costs for structured parking, when he compared the land costs in the Delta site versus willing land prices in the 2nd and Chambers area, he concluded it was probably ~a wash." Speaking to the mayor's comments about the uncertainty of being the first development in the area, Mr. Meisner said he recently spent a day in the Pearl District in Portland, a former industrial center than had undergone extensive renovation and redevelopment in recent years. Mr. Meisner was also interested in having staff prepare a ~Plan B." He was interested in knowing what revenues or bonding authority could exist in such a district and what the council could do with that. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 2004 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Meisner said that neighborhood response was an issue for every site. He thought that McKenzie- Willamette/Triad would be foolish to discount what he anticipated would be powerful opposition from neighbors of the Delta site. Ms. Bettman thought the neighborhood issue an important one. She noted the neighborhoods in the vicinity of the 2nd and Chambers site were considering or had passed resolutions in support of hospital locating at the 2nd and Chambers site. She said if a site had no opposition and lots of support, the development was ultimately doable, and the City could expedite it so it could be up very soon. Ms. Bettman briefly noted the benefits she attributed to the 2nd and Chambers site, which included price, location, and a minimal number of willing sellers. She said the City already made a commitment to the area through its investments in the fire station. She thought the location would work for the hospital and the community, as the community would be able to secure a full range of emergency services without the need to cross a bridge. She believed the Delta site had serious access issues, and faced neighborhood opposition. Ms. Bettman said that McKenzie-Willamette/Triad was looking to do business. She thought it wanted to know what the City could give it. Ms. Nathanson agreed with Ms. Bettman about the benefits of the Chambers and 2nd site, but said the council could not force McKenzie-Willamette/Triad to locate at the site. It could encourage McKenzie- Willamette/Triad to do so. She wanted staff to keep trying to persuade the hospital about the merits of the location, but her bottom line was a hospital in Eugene. She hoped staff continued to assist anyone who had questions about their development proposals. Ms. Taylor did not want to give up on the 2nd and Chambers site. She did not want to offer the hospital incentives if the site it choose was outside the preferred area, and wanted to make that clear to McKenzie- Willamette/Triad. Ms. Taylor thought neighborhood acceptance should be a major factor in the location of the hospital. Mr. Pap6 agreed with Ms. Nathanson that the City could not force the hospital to locate at 2nd and Chambers. He agreed with Ms. Bettman that a "Plan B" was needed, and said if more work was to done at 2nd and Chambers, more work needed to be done on other sites, such as the fairgrounds and the West Broadway site. Mr. Pap6 moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, that the council go into an executive session. The council discussed the motion. Ms. Bettman thought the motion premature as she did not think the council was finished with the discussion yet. She said that the hospital was asking for incentives for a site it had already selected, and she questioned why, in that case, an executive session was needed. Mr. Meisner asked the manager to tell the council what direction he had received from the council that lead to the need for an executive session. City Manager Taylor said he had heard the council's comments about confining incentives to the preferred area. He received a specific request from Willamette- McKenzie/Triad that he wanted to bring before the council; if it chose not to do so, that was the purview of MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 2004 Page 8 Work Session the council. The subject of the executive session was a real estate transaction that it would be inappropriate to discuss in open forum. Mr. Meisner supported the motion. Ms. Taylor said she would support a brief executive session. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to limit the executive session to five-minutes. The council briefly discussed the merits of limiting the executive session. The vote on the amendment to the motion was a 4:4 tie, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Pap~ voting yes, and Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner, Mr. Poling, and Ms. Solomon voting no. Mayor Torrey cast a vote against the motion, which failed on a final vote of 5:4. The vote to enter into executive session passed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Taylor voting no. D. EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to ORS 192.660(1)(e), the Eugene City Council entered into executive session. The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 2004 Page 9 Work Session ATTACHMENT B MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber--City Hall February 9, 2004 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gary Pap6, Nancy Nathanson, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Scott Meisner His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. CEREMONIAL MATTERS · Recognition of Captain Thad Buchanan City Manager Dennis Taylor stated that the City was taking this opportunity to commend Captain Thad Buchanan for stepping in as interim police chief until a new chief could be selected. He said Capt. Buchanan acted as Chief of Police for two years, serving with dedication, distinction, and integrity. He listed some of the good works to which Capt. Buchanan's participation had been integral. Mr. Taylor asked Capt. Buchanan to come forward and accept the certificate of recognition. He read the certificate into the record and thanked Capt. Buchanan for his service. Mayor Torrey and Mr. Taylor presented the certificate to Capt. Buchanan. He then received a standing ovation. 2. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Torrey explained the rules for the Public Forum. Bruce Miller, PO Box 50968, Eugene, supported the creation and implementation of a student housing code. He suggested that it be modeled after the student housing code in the City of Corvallis. Mr. Miller repeated his recommendation that Mayor Torrey apply to be Dean of the University of Oregon School of Business. Roger J. Bidwell, PO Box 24333, Eugene, explained that he was a member of the Lane County Homebuilders Association and owner of a fence-building company. He expressed concern that the information sheet supplied by the Permit Information Center (PIC) did not match code language. He related that he had to take code language and incorporate it into contracts for his clients, but that much of it was open to interpretation. He asked the City to close the gap between expectations and practice. He opined that, based on interpretation, 95 percent of what he built for clients could be construed to be in violation of the code. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 0 Regular Meeting Jesse Harding, 625 East 16th Avenue, noted that he had served on the City of Eugene-University of Oregon Joint Task Force on the West University Neighborhood along with Councilor Kelly. He felt that a housing standard should be a key issue and suggested that a general code dealing with leaking roofs and the need for working heat be crafted in a way that was easy for citizens to comprehend He urged the council to make the code a priority and not to defer the item to a work session in June. He felt holding the work session in June would preclude student input. David Hansen, 2738 Kismet Way, wished to address the community need for housing standards. He asserted that the City Council moved to put off the issue by scheduling the work session on the item for June. He felt it was a move to kill the issue. He thought the issue should be addressed as a City priority as evidenced by the joint task force's long-term recommendation to Mayor Torrey and University of Oregon President David Frohnmayer. Mr. Hansen declared the city of Eugene to have 30,000 rental units. He expressed concern that renters did not have adequate access to legal action and stated that the implementation of housing standards was not costly. He said the cities of Salem and Corvallis had proven, self-sustaining models based on small yearly fees that had were successful in providing renters with protection. He asserted there were no protections for renters in Eugene. Shannon Tarvin, 1330 Oak Patch Road, #64, spoke on behalf of Eugene Citizens for Housing Standards (ECHS), a local group of citizens concerned about the lack of safe rental housing in the city. She stated that between 1966 and 1983, the City had a housing code and, after its repeal, renters had no protection. Having researched housing codes across the state of Oregon, she recommended modeling a housing code after the code adopted by the City of Corvallis which was mostly supported by a per-unit fee of $8 per year. She explained that the fee also paid for a rental housing program that all residents and landlords had access to. She felt the make-up of the two cities were similar in that they both had large college populations. She alleged that some basic needs were not being met in Eugene and conveyed the request of ECHS for minimum habitability standards that addressed plumbing, heating, structural integrity, and weather-proofing. Ms. Tarvin averred that a housing standard code should both educate renters on their rights and ensure compliance to habitability standards. She asserted there were 54,000 renters in Eugene and asked the council to consider what the top council priority should be, based on the needs of its citizen electorate. Maddy Melton, 957 Chambers Street, thanked the council for addressing the need for housing standards, but felt that it should not be delayed until June. She asked if councilors remembered that the students' only issue with code change that allowed campus public safety officers to issue citations was that the hearing on it was held in the summer when the fewet number of students were on campus. She stressed that housing standards were a primary issue for students and added that she had helped, as the student body president, to register circa 4,000 students. She stated that the students were voters in this community. Evan Fransted, 732 West 10th Avenue, stated that the only protection for renters in the city of Eugene was the Landlord Tenant Act in State Code and asserted it had been proven to be inadequate. He averred that a complaint with a landlord had to be taken to Civil Court. He said Ballot Measure 28 had caused the court system to cut back its schedule from five days to four, causing housing complaints to be deferred. Mr. Fransted noted, with irony, that the same system gives evictions a higher priority. He urged the council to take action on this issue sooner than June. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 2 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman congratulated Capt. Buchanan. She said it was admirable that he had stepped into a position that he did not want and had served two years and done an excellent job. Councilor Bettman thanked the students for attending the meeting and speaking in the Public Forum. She felt confident that, though the work session on housing standards was scheduled for June, no action would be taken before the following fall. Councilor Kelly thanked those who spoke at the Public Forum. He lauded the work that Capt. Buchanan had done as interim police chief, stating that he had done an admirable job. Councilor Kelly asked staff to follow up with Mr. Bidwell's concern regarding the accuracy of the information sheets available at the PIC. Mr. Taylor affirmed that staff would look into this. Councilor Kelly expressed his disappointment that the council, by a %are majority," had voted to defer the work session on housing standards until June. He agreed, however, that the issue would not likely reach the level of a public hearing and subsequent action until fall or winter. He opined that a renter should be entitled to a house with heat and whose roof did not leak without having to take court action. Councilor Solomon thanked the City Manager for following up on Mr. Bidwell's request. Councilor Solomon objected to the characterization of the council's prioritization of housing standards as having sloughed them off. She related there had been confusion as to what the issue entailed and the work session was to provide scope to the question in order to facilitate meaningful discussion. She thought the Salem and Corvallis codes were likely effective, but was sure the codes had been subject to the same sort of political process that housing standards would face in Eugene. Councilor Nathanson stated that she had a great interest in housing standards ever since she had worked on the third revised edition of The Renters' Handbook as part of her work in Oregon Student Public Interest Research Group (OSPIRG). She felt it should be expanded to examine how renters should be treated fairly across the city. She said the prioritization process had actually ~jumped" this issue ahead of other issues. She asserted that the real question was whether a local code or an enforcement mechanism was needed. She reminded those present that a public hearing would be held and she assured them it would be scheduled at the ~right and appropriate time." Councilor Pap~ added his accolades to those already given to Capt. Buchanan. He stated that Capt. Buchanan %tepped up" to the position and did the right thing. Councilor Pap~ thanked those present for bringing the housing standards issue to the forefront. He clarified that the prioritization exercise conducted in the work session was for the Planning Division only. He felt it should not be left to only the Planning Division, as it was of a larger scope. Councilor Taylor appreciated the work of the students on the housing standards issue. She felt the subject of housing standards to be very important. She advocated for taking action that affected the University of Oregon campus during the school year. Councilor Meisner joined his colleagues in thanking Capt. Buchanan for his service. He was proud to have worked with him. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 3 Regular Meeting Councilor Meisner expressed his support for making housing standards a high priority. He also thought, given the slowness of the ordinance and ordinance revision process, public hearings would likely take place during the school year. He opined that having the work session in June might have actually moved action on the issue up. He felt that it was not the housing standards per se that were of greatest concern, but rather how enforcement would occur. He noted that there had been flurry of phone messages and emails in the last several weeks, adding that prior to this activity, he had received one complaint in seven years regarding housing standards. Councilor Poling congratulated Capt. Buchanan on a job well done. Councilor Poling thanked Mr. Hansen for bringing housing standards to his attention. He thought the discussion would focus on developing a program to facilitate action on substandard housing. He noted that he had been a poor student in substandard housing at one point in his life. Mayor Torrey described one of the first houses he and his wife had rented, noting that it was a refurbished garage and without heat. He opined that Councilor Nathanson's motion had been the most expedient way to handle the issue. Mayor Torrey asked Ms. Melton to call his office and ensure that she, as student body president, was included on the list of interested parties. He supported holding hearings when all affected parties would be in attendance, i.e., during the school year. He stressed that all people were heard at the Public Forum, adding that this was the first time he had seen so many University of Oregon students in the Council Chamber. Mayor Torrey stated that he had seen a great deal of student participation one other time, when the After- School Initiative was being voted upon. He credited the students for being part of the momentum that passed the initiative. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - January 12, 2004, City Council Meeting - January 14, 2004, Process Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 4 Regular Meeting Councilor Kelly stated that he had previously submitted corrections to the minutes via email. Mayor Torrey said the corrections had been reviewed and that, without objection, they were deemed approved. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar passed by unanimous vote, 8:0. 4. PUBLIC HEARING and POSSIBLE ACTION: Proposed Revisions to Traffic and Ordinance Offenses An Ordinance Concerning Criminal Trespass and Interference with a Firefighter; Amending Sections 4.805, 4.808, and 4.990 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Renumbering Section 4.810 of that Code to Section 4.812; Adding Sections 4.810 and 4.941 to that Code; and Providing an Immediate Effective Date and An Ordinance Concerning State Traffic Laws; Amending Sections 5.005 and 5.990 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing an Immediate Effective Date Mr. Taylor introduced Marilyn Nelson, Court Administrator, who spoke to this issue. Ms. Nelson explained, as heard at the January 26 work session, that the first ordinance had to do with legislative updates to Chapter 4, part of which was to update language for the offense of criminal trespass and to add two new offenses, that of interfering with a firefighter or emergency medical services personnel and also trespassing at a sporting event. She stated that these were passed into State law and should be reflected in the City Code as well. She said the other ordinance would put into City Code all of the traffic updates from the last state legislative session. She added that it would also propose a new City penalty section that would retain local control over the City's traffic fines. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Randy Rogers, 1980 Gilham Road, spoke as a representative of Kidsports in support of the ordinances. He related that Kidsports had been successful in controlling the sporting environment. He noted that, in 10 years of basketball games, only three people needed to be removed by the police. He felt the new measure would assist by providing more "teeth" to the process. He said Kidsports had written a sportsman's pledge, which was now read before every game, to remind those present to play with consideration. He stressed that the organization took responsibility for having sports events without unsportsmanlike conduct very seriously. Tim Laue, 124 Spencers Crest Drive, spoke on behalf of the Eugene Police Commission to testify in support of the two ordinances. He stated that traffic violations in neighborhoods in this community had consistently topped citizens' list of concerns over the years. He said House Bill 2759 constrained the Municipal Court's ability to make penalties fit the crimes. He advocated for passage of the ordinance in order to provide the court more flexibility and more local control in the adjudication of traffic offenses. Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing. Seeing no questions or comments from the council, Mayor Torrey asked if there were objections to taking action at the present meeting. There was none. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 5 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4864, an ordinance concerning criminal trespass and interference with a firefighter. Councilor Papd thanked Mr. Rogers and Mr. Laue for speaking to the issue. He also commended Mr. Laue for his service to the community both on the council and now on the Police Commission. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4861, an ordinance concerning state traffic laws. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Multiple-Unit Housing and Amending Section 2.945 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Mr. Taylor called Richie Weinman, Urban Services Manager for the Planning and Development Department, to the podium to speak to the issue. Mr. Weinman explained that the Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) was a ten-year property tax exemption for housing, new construction of five units or more designed to encourage development in the urban core. The proposal before the council sought to expand the boundary for MUPTE. He opined that without help to ~level the playing field" and provide assistance, it was unlikely the City would see new multi-family housing developed in the downtown area. He said, after ten years, the City would see substantial benefit from developments built with the MUPTE incentive. Councilor Kelly noted that, on the second page of the ordinance, the section that had required that a development meet ~at least four of" the design features listed in subsection (2) was not in the present draft. He stated that, for action, he thought it should be included. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Deborah Healey, 360 East 15th Avenue, reported that the executive committee of the West University Neighbors (WUN), of which she was a member, had met twice to discuss the issue. She related that the WUN did support actions that would improve housing standards in the neighborhood. She submitted two additions to the seven quality standards mentioned in option one, proposed by the WUN, as follows: 1) Approval by the appropriate neighborhood association would be required; 2) That the proposed development should be designed for home ownership. She stated that the WUN wanted to be part of the MUPTE process. She added that, should the two additions be included, the WUN would advocate for requiring that five of nine of the design features be met rather than four of seven of them. Mark Steven Baker, 360 East 15th Avenue, noted that he was a community member appointed to the joint task force. He attributed the problems the neighborhood experienced to the lack of stability caused by the transient nature of neighborhood residents due to the abundance of rentals and the fact that the population was largely made up of students. He asked the council to craft policies that would encourage some diversity of occupancy in the neighborhood in order to increase stability. Mr. Baker commented MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 6 Regular Meeting that the low level of maintenance done on properties in the neighborhood contributed to the problem. He felt that rental owners were holding property, investing as little as possible, and getting the highest rents they could based on the assumption that the property would eventually become part of the university or the hospital. Tom Slocum, 1950 Graham Drive, voiced his support of the staff recommendation. He felt that, because the projects would come before the City Council, there would be opportunities to determine the quality of the project. He did not think that the City would want to get into design contests on a neighborhood basis. Regarding the proposed boundary, he urged the council to move it so that it butted up against Washington Street allowing development to look out over the park. Russ Brink, 214 East 30th Avenue, executive director of Downtown Eugene Incorporated (DE1), called attention to the memorandum included in the council packet, which was the result of a meeting of developers who had built in the downtown area, City staff, and a representative of the architect group. He encouraged the council to read the memorandum. He conveyed the organization's support for the expanded boundary and the staff recommendation for the language on design standards. He noted that staff indicated that the existing Land Use Code was adequate to provide the quality projects the City was seeking. He added that DE1 also supported the elimination of the low-income housing fee connected to MUPTE applications in the past. Mr. Brink asserted that downtown development was some of the most expensive development to pursue. Regarding the concern expressed by some that the MUPTE would represent lost tax revenue, Mr. Brink stressed that undeveloped property did not increase tax revenue, while development eventually increased the tax rolls. Terry Connolly, 1401 Willamette Street, conveyed the support of the Eugene Chamber of Commerce for the expanded MUPTE boundary. He called it a tool to help achieve the vision set forth by the Downtown Plan. He asserted that trying to densify the core population of the City would help revitalize the downtown area. He underscored that the City Council had the final say on a project and a prudent investor or developer would realize that there would be an expectation of quality in the application, so the extent that Option (2) provided in the preamble that the council looked for quality, it represented a directional guideline an applicant would want to pursue. Mr. Connolly asked the council to ~demonstrate commitment to the Downtown Plan Update" and approve the MUPTE ordinances before it in conjunction with Option (2). Micheal Roberts, 1919 Myers Road, supported the need to ensure that tax dollars and tax exemptions were spent to the best benefit possible. To that end, he felt the addition of the seven public benefit standards should be approved. He asserted that the City Council would be able to judge the projects using these standards as goals and provide the most benefit for the public dollars. Mr. Roberts said there was a ~real need for this exemption" to make downtown development viable and asked the council to support Option (2) in order to given the community the design standards needed and the flexibility. Hugh Prichard, 101 East Broadway Street, explained that he was a co-developer of the Broadway Place, a mixed-use development that benefitted from the MUPTE it was granted in 1996. He urged the council to expand the boundary and to keep it simple. He felt the process was a ~good, transparent" public process. He described the process, stating that the developer submitted its construction costs in a public work session and in two l~roformas. Mr. Prichard said that developer was required to justify the tax relief MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 7 Regular Meeting and suggested that, as the numbers were not completely known at this point, the council go back to the two largest developments constructed to date and analyze their actual financial performance. He related that what would be found was that both Broadway Place and High Street Terrace were overly optimistic in the proformas submitted prior to development. What was thought to be a nine-percent return had become less than a four-percent return. He alleged that the project would now be losing money should it have been made to pay full property taxes. Mr. Prichard stressed that no project could withstand sustained losses and added that Broadway Place had been a success with occupancy that has mn no lower than 92 percent over time, though it has the highest rents in Eugene. Mr. Prichard underscored that land in the downtown area cost as much as ten times the cost of multi- family zoned land in the suburbs. Additionally, the collective vision for development was that downtown housing should be multi-story, mixed use, steel and masonry, and with embedded parking. He stressed that this made construction costs more than double that of construction of suburban wooden dwellings. He asserted that rental rates to cover the costs were currently impossible to achieve. He encouraged the council to keep and expand MUPTE and continue to try to ;;level the playing field." Martin Henner, 984 Lincoln Street, stated that he was part of a group that was seeking to build co- housing, a cooperative housing with a ;;Danish flavor", in downtown Eugene. He related that his group tied down a parcel of land on the comer of 11th Avenue and Lincoln Street that appeared to be suitable for this. Noting that downtown development was very expensive, he stressed that while the council was expanding the MUPTE boundary in other directions, it was not being expanded in the area of this property. He conveyed the desire of the group to increase residency in the downtown area. He asserted there was no reason not to expand the boundary to the west. He recommended extending the boundary to Lawrence Street or to Washington Street. He expressed hope that the council wanted to see more owner- occupied residences downtown and not just rental units. Elizabeth Lyon, 2123 Marlow Lane, spoke as part of the potential co-housing development. She related that she had raised her family in a single-family dwelling and they were now grown. She stated that she was an author with four books and had an editing company. She expressed her desire to be part of a co- housing development now that her children were grown, but felt her position was tenuous. She opined that both low-income and high-income people received benefits for housing in the downtown area but middle-income people like herself received none. She urged the council to help the people ;;in the middle" who want to contribute to the revitalization of the downtown area. Jenny Gussett, 535 West 20th Avenue, testified on behalf of the co-housing group. She said she had a long-held interest in the community and in enhancing the sustainability and livability of the downtown area. She felt the co-housing development had a unique take on the fulfillment of the downtown goals as it featured multi-family, multi-generational housing and would be an opportunity to model how people could live in a community and have ownership at the same time. She added that it would encourage people to use cars less and walk more and asked that the boundary be expanded to include the site at 11th Avenue and Lincoln Street. Mayor Torrey called for a five-minute break at 8:52 p.m. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Weinman clarified that the staff recommendation was that low-income housing would no longer be counted as a public benefit by charging the fee, because it was preferable to see the project quality increase. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 8 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman felt the ECO Northwest study did not apply to the West University Neighborhood, as the data was different. She asserted the neighborhood was not a downtown neighborhood. She stated that she had supported the MUPTE for the downtown core, adding that she would support further incentives for that specific area. Councilor Meisner supported the MUPTE proposal as presented before the council, including its boundaries. For those who requested the boundary be extended to Lawrence Street or farther, he stressed that the discussion had been, for years, focused on the preservation of the neighborhood there. He asked if the co-housing proposal could be allowed to benefit from the MUPTE. Mr. Weinman responded that the boundary could be extended to include that property. Councilor Nathanson expressed her support for the reinvigoration of the incentive. She asked staff to look into and present information on what it would take to extend the boundary to allow the co-housing development to benefit from the MUPTE and also to include the area between 1st Avenue and 5th or 6th avenues. She said, while true that the council had been explicit about not changing the neighborhood immediately adjacent to the edge of downtown, the northern edge seemed to be of a separate development type. Mr. Weinman agreed to look into this and provide the information. Councilor Kelly said the staff response to a parcel specific inclusion in the MUPTE boundary was also of interest to him. Councilor Kelly asked staff to prepare an amendment for the adoption meeting that would include the WUN recommendations. Additionally, Councilor Kelly commented that, if the City was not expanding the boundary beyond the downtown core, he would not feel a need for the standards that had been added. He supported them because the boundary had been expanded into the West University Neighborhood. He opined that, should the City be granting public funds to developers, high standards of development needed to be upheld in that area. In response to a question from Councilor Papd, Mr. Weinman explained that the Ya-Po-Ah Terrace was a HUD 202 federal project and was tax-exempt because it was a Department of Housing and Urban Development project to build low-income housing. Councilor Pap~ supported the inclusion of the co-housing development project in the MUPTE boundary. Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson, in response to Councilor Pap~, stated that the Eugene area covered 43 square miles. Councilor Pap~ remarked that the project-by-project approval would prevent the West University Neighborhood from having a shoddy development built within its parameters with the benefit of MUPTE. He said that when counting city blocks, the MUPTE boundary seemed to encompass approximately one square mile and was not excessive. Councilor Taylor strongly believed that everyone should share the tax burden and if people are excused from taxes, it should be for a definite benefit. She supported a tax incentive for the core of the city. She opined that the Broadway Place development had not contributed to making the core of the downtown area more vibrant. She advocated for making all of the standards of quality required. She predicted that any proposed MUPTE would be submitted to the City Council in the Consent Calendar. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 9 Regular Meeting Councilor Taylor asserted that people pay property taxes wherever they live. She thought the idea that a MUPTE was an investment in tax revenue that would otherwise not be collected was erroneous. Councilor Taylor said that new housing just moves tenants from one place to another. Mr. Weinman responded that the population was growing by two percent per year and the need for housing was increasing. He reiterated that increasing the level of development increased the property tax rolls. Mayor Torrey supported the concept of home ownership and incentives that promote home ownership in all areas and in the University area in particular. He recommended ';thinking outside the box" and allowing, for instance, the co-housing development to qualify for the MUPTE. Councilor Bettman reminded the public that taxing jurisdictions including schools now forego revenue when property is exempted from taxes for ten years. She opined that people would not support forgoing money that would pay for school and core essential services in order to support student housing in the West University neighborhood. Mr. Weinman, in response to Councilor Kelly, affirmed that the council could only approve or reject a MUPTE and could not grant a partial MUPTE. Councilor Bettman predicted that residential housing would be displaced should a developer build on a site. She asked staff to bring back an amendment to delete the expanded district south of 13th Avenue and west of Lincoln Street. Councilor Pap6 asked if an applicant could reapply should the City Council mm a MUPTE down. Mr. Weinman replied that it could. In response to a further question from Councilor Pap6, Mr. Weinman stated that the land on which a development was being built would remain on the property tax rolls during the ten-year exemption period. Mayor Torrey closed the hearing. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Adopting Amended Riverfront Urban Renewal District Plan Adopted by Ordinance No. 19352 on September 11, 1985 Mr. Taylor stated that Mr. Weinman would briefly outline the changes that were proposed to the urban renewal plan and that were the subject of the hearing before the council. Mr. Weinman underscored that this was a public hearing on amendments to the Riverfront Research Park Urban Renewal Plan and that the council had discussed it six times during 2003. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Betty Thompson, 1644 West 19th Avenue, commented that, at present, many taxpayers were almost being taxed out of their houses. She said this also impacted renters as the landlords passed tax increases on to them. She asserted that, since the district would not produce revenue, it represented excessive spending in this time of recession. Ms. Thompson expressed concern that the project would exacerbate traffic congestion on Franklin MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 10 Regular Meeting Boulevard. She attributed the closing of stores in the downtown area to urban renewal and opined that urban renewal was not necessarily a good thing. She asked if the urban renewal district would raise property taxes and, if so, to what degree. Carlis Nixon, 1556 Willamette Street, remarked that it was difficult not to see this development through the "filter of the research park development" and opined the development had not been an enrichment to Eugene. She asked that all possible care be taken to ensure the natural area adjacent to the river not be environmentally damaged and that unnecessary development of open spaces and natural areas be kept to a minimum. Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, requested the record be left open for an additional seven days. He asserted that the Riverfront Research District had been conceived of 20 years ago. He questioned whether the debt and the projections made regarding in the district the present proposal were being truthful to the public. He thought it could take 60 years to achieve the full build-out. He questioned the merit of taking the revenue from the schools and the City. Jana Rygas, 2476 Nixon Street, was concerned about the removal of some of this land from the tax rolls which support the things the community needs such as fire, police, and aquatic facilities - all supported by the General Fund. She averred that, should the land be taken off the tax rolls, there needed to be accountability and that the City should be able to reliably predict that this move would benefit the community in the long-run. She suggested that there had been a "mixed track record" in the City of Eugene and some projects had worked well and some had not. She felt there were not enough safeguards in place. She disputed the language that referred to "blight" in the neighborhood, stating that though there were parking lots there was also a substantial natural area along the river. Ms. Rygas alleged that the plans called for a road to be situated next to the river. She opposed this, as the Willamette Greenway should be protected. She urged the council to build in more control "up front" to guide very specifically which projects should go forward and which priorities should be adopted. Mayor Torrey stated that, barring objections from staff and the City Council, action on Agenda Item (9) would be deferred to a later meeting due to time constraints. Terry Connolly, 1401 Willamette Street, spoke on behalf of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce. He called urban renewal districts one of the few tools that a city had to help with redevelopment and revitalization. Regarding the riverfront district, Mr. Connolly asserted that the development of the courthouse would serve as a catalyst for new development and extending the boundary to the courthouse area would provide the City with the tools necessary to bring the planning concepts to fruition. Ray Wolfe, 1473 Luella Street, submitted documents into the record. He opined that the timing of the urban renewal district could not be worse as Ballot Measure 30 had so recently been defeated. He alleged there had never been an objective study of the urban renewal results from past projects. He felt it would be prudent to allow the ad hoc committee on economic development to fulfill its charge prior to embarking on such a project. He asserted that tax increment financing would set a preemptive priority on sacrosanct tax increment funds. He thought there were other items in the General Fund budget that held a greater priority. He called attention to the bicycle tunnel built under the railroad tracks by the Riverfront Research Park and called it an example of poor spending priorities. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 11 Regular Meeting Russ Brink, 132 East Broadway Street, of Downtown Eugene Incorporated (DEI) echoed the comments of Mr. Connolly. He agreed that urban renewal could be controversial, but asserted that the only way some of the things that had been discussed for the courthouse neighborhood could be achieved would be through this funding mechanism. He asserted that there had been a change in focus as it was no longer the Riverfront Research Park but was now the Riverfront Urban Renewal District. He opined that this council and councils to come in the future would change the track record of earlier urban renewal efforts for the better. Cynthia Kokis, 2465 Jefferson Street, asked whose idea the urban renewal district was, who stood to profit from it, how it would affect the ~powerless," if it would impact funds for schools or the General Fund, and how would it impact the river. She wondered if this district would use money from highway funds. She thought the Willamette Greenway permit study should be reinstated. She highlighted the history of the downtown developments since 1973, noting that things had been built and torn down. Nishan Yanatta, 3435 Potter Street, echoed comments made in support of keeping the eco-system safe. She also agreed with remarks made with regard to the timing of the district and ~dollars." She did not object to improvements in general, but would not support an increase in tax rates. She noted that when the library had been voted down, the City found private and matching funds to build it. She proposed that the City do the same for the urban renewal district and suggested that anyone able to raise funds should be paid a percentage of the monies they raised, including City Councilors. She reiterated that citizens had repeatedly voted down tax increases. In closing, she thanked the City Council for the good work that it had done for the community. Kevin Matthews, PO Box 1588, Eugene, echoed comments about adjustments made to the urban renewal district and how some of these adjustments had been %orrosive" to public trust. He questioned whether the district was actually %lighted," given that a significant portion of the area was Willamette Greenway. He opposed ~gerrymandering" funds to be spent outside of the regular approval process through an urban renewal district. He alleged there was an ~ill-advised" transportation project planned to locate a portion of Highway 99 next to the river. He stated that the City was behind in the Willamette Greenway planning. Bryn Anderson, 2277 Friendly Street, expressed concern regarding the Riverfront Research Park and asserted that there was a lack of attention being paid toward some elements of campus in order to build others. She alleged that a new dormitory was being built while other dormitories were run down and in need of repair. Noting the Bus Rapid Transit corridor down the center of Franklin Boulevard, Ms. Anderson questioned whether the safety of pedestrians and students would be addressed. She asked what the development in the Riverfront Research Park would mean and why students were not being asked to contribute input. She urged the City and the University to examine the issues and not create more by extending the Riverfront Research Park. Al Urquhart, 1045 East 20th Avenue, agreed that the purpose of the amendment was to change the focus of the Urban Renewal District from that of a Riverfront Research Park to that of supporting a courthouse and the downtown area. He opposed the inclusion of the present area of the Riverfront Research Park in the new addition because the City would need to evaluate what has happened there. He averred the area was still blighted according to the report, and listed some of the reasons given in the report for the blight. He called the Riverfront Research Park a failure as a tax increment district. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 12 Regular Meeting Drix Drixman, 307-½ East 14th Avenue, said Eugene was a magic town and that he had recently returned to live here. He remembered the river and the greenway from the 1970s, calling them precious. He asserted that the City was now thinking of taking a chunk of it and giving it to the private sector so someone could have a view from their office. He told the story of how he had shared a dormitory room with a boring person when he had attended college. He had decorated his side of the room in a lively manner while his boring roommate had done nothing. He related how, when he had finished decorating, he was stuck looking at the ~dumb" side of the room while his roommate looked at his festively decorated side of the room. He urged the city to consider that, while the office might have a beautiful view, the people from across the river would look at a building. He suggested everyone present float down the river in an inner tube during the summer and enjoy the greenery along the river. Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Meisner, moved to keep the record open for seven days. The motion carried unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Meisner asked staff to respond to the following questions: 1) What would be the consequences or effects both financially and in potential development terms for the University of Oregon if the eastern portion of the district was removed from the urban renewal district? 2) Is the Highway 99 couplet in the Willamette Greenway? 3) Could some information be compiled for the public to read on urban renewal and Ballot Measure 50, as tax rates could no longer be adjusted or increased with exemptions? Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Kelly moved to direct the City Manager to bring back for final action the Riverfront Urban Renewal District with the following modification: - for A-1 public improvements, curb and sidewalk improvements: improvements within the renewal area will require construction and reconstruction of curb and sidewalks within the project area; the renewal agency would participate in funding sidewalk improvements including design, redesign, construction, repair, and acquisition of right-of-way for sidewalks, pedestrian and bicycle paths when there was no other eligible funding source available; - projects to be undertaken would include curb and sidewalk improvements identified in the Eugene Capital Improvement Program and the Vision for a Greater Downtown Eugene report and the Courthouse District Concept Plan and other curbside walk improvements identified by the renewal agency. - the plan to provide that the urban renewal district would be amended to reflect that revenue shall not be spent on projects or activities for which existing funding mechanisms are traditionally used, such as assessments, fees, or systems development charges, or to pay expenses incurred by or for another jurisdiction such as the State, County, or Federal government; - Item (6) shall be deleted from the language. Councilor Bettman noted that it was often heard that the City could not fund schools or human services because funding was dedicated for roads. She asserted that the urban renewal district would take funding that could be used for these things and spend it on roads. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 13 Regular Meeting Councilor Pap~, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to table the motion. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Taylor voting in opposition. Mayor Torrey, noting the time, deferred the last items on the agenda. The meeting adjourned at 10:01 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) M: 120041Central Services DepartmentlCity CouncillccO40209m2. wpd MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 14 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT C MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room-City Hall February 11, 2004 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gary Papd, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon. His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A. WORK SESSION: East Campus Plan Amendments City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Allen Lowe, Senior Planner for the Planning and Development Department, and asked him to speak to this item. Mr. Lowe explained that in August 2003, the University of Oregon submitted an application seeking land use approvals to establish a new planning framework for the east campus area, a 35-acre area just east of the main campus. He said the necessary approvals included amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Diagram, the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Study, and to Chapter 9 of the Eugene City Code. He stated that the Metro Plan amendment would redesignate 30 acres of land now designated for high-density residential (HDR), medium-density residential (MDR), and low-density residential (LDR) to Government and Education. Mr. Lowe noted the University had been actively pursuing the purchase of property within this area since the 1960s and currently owned 113 of the 122 parcels within the boundaries of the east campus area. He indicated on the map the area proposed to be redesignated. Mr. Lowe said the current Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Study had been adopted in 1982. The University was seeking to amend three of the policies in the plan that referred to University-owned land. He stated that the amendments to the policy would have the effect of expanding the public land zoning over most of the State-approved campus boundaries and would allow a general intensification of a mixed- use category of land throughout the area and leave a residential buffer of R- 1 zoning. Mr. Lowe reported that staff findings indicate the University proposal satisfied all of the criteria for approval necessary to adopt the amendments. Mr. Lowe highlighted neighborhood concerns regarding the East Campus Plan and its impact on traffic, parking, and livability. He related that the Fairmount Neighborhood Association had commissioned a group of people to monitor the land use process and comment on the land use application, known as the Fairmount Neighborhood Association East Campus Committee (ECC). He stated that the City suggested a mediation process and all parties agreed to participate. He said the ECC made suggestions for modifications to the plan. At the conclusion of the process there were three issues left unresolved. He felt MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 11, 2004 Page 1 Work Session the process had been successful in coming to agreement on a number of issues and eliminating others that, at the beginning, had been ~quite contentious." Mr. Lowe cited two policy issues for the council, a study of Agate Street and an area-wide traffic calming study. He noted there were funding issues associated with the policies and conveyed staffs recommendation that, should no funding be allocated, the policies be removed from the plan. Mr. Lowe called attention to the issues mediation had not been able to resolve with the neighborhood. He reported the neighborhood sought a minimum time limit for the plan to be in effect and staff had recommended against it. He said another issue brought up by the neighborhood was a desire to prohibit conditional use permits (CUPs) in the zone. He anticipated that the City Council would hear some testimony in favor of this prohibition from the neighborhood. Mr. Lowe indicated that the adopting ordinance published the previous week had erroneously specified that, in addition to other uses allowed by a CUP, office uses would be allowed. He clarified that the policy strictly limited the kinds of conditional uses in the area to office uses and other supportive uses. Mayor Torrey called for questions and comments from the council. Mr. Kelly noted the east campus area was located within his ward and that he had attended many of the meetings regarding the plan. He had been pleased by the mediation process. He felt there had been a ;;huge gulf" between the interests of the neighborhood and the University initially and that to reduce 30 areas of contention to 3 was no small feat. Mr. Kelly called the traffic studies critically important. He urged the council to find funding for them. He thought it especially prudent given the development of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), the potential redevelopment of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) site, and the enormous impact he predicted the East Campus Plan would have. He noted the second study was not slated to be completed before 2008. He commented that the first study only called for $15,000, suggesting it be taken from the General Fund Contingency. Mr. Pap6 commented that citizens in the River Road/Santa Clara also wanted funding to update the plans in that area. He felt it important to keep ;;an even playing field." In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Lowe clarified that the Walnut Street/Franklin Boulevard Node was a completely separate issue. He explained that the University application was judged on a set of criteria and the boundary of the plan was 400 to 500 feet from the westernmost edge of the node. He added that traffic patterns were projected to change, but the City would not be able to condition the plan to address those concerns. He stressed that an area-wide traffic calming study would address concerns where the node and the campus plan might overlap. Ms. Taylor asserted the council should be concerned about the preservation of neighborhoods. She asked why CUPs should not be excluded. Mr. Lowe responded that the CUP process was one of the few permitting processes that allowed the City to evaluate new development as it went in and place conditions on its construction. Ms. Taylor believed the CUP process could be used to change development from residential to office development. Mr. Lowe said that staff believed there should be a process that allowed for positive change to happen in the edge of the east campus area. Without such change, he asserted properties could lapse into disrepair because there was no way to improve the building. Ms. Taylor disagreed, stating it would be worthwhile to preserve the housing. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 11, 2004 Page 2 Work Session In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Lowe explained that a parking structure was prohibited in both the R-1 area and the area to be zoned for limited institutional/residential use. Even so, he said a parking structure was envisioned in the area. Mr. Poling applauded the collaborative effort that the City had participated in. He said he was impressed by the "give and take" all parties demonstrated. Regarding the two traffic policies, he asked what would happen if the two policies were removed. Mr. Lowe responded that removing the policies would disallow a proposed mandate that the City study Agate Street, deemed a fairly dysfunctional minor arterial. He said that identifying how to improve function on the street was an important part of enabling the University to expand in the area. As for the traffic calming study, he acknowledged there was no funding available from the City at present for such an endeavor. However, he recommended this area be an exception as it was increasingly impacted by out-of- area traffic. Mr. Poling asked about the pros and cons of having a time limit for implementation of the East Campus Plan. Mr. Lowe replied that the policy had gone through two phases, the first of which was the insistence by the neighborhood that it be a participant in any future plan amendment process. He said the initial proposal was that any plan amendment over two acres in size would force the City to create a collaborative process. He related that staff had identified 21 plan amendments that would have triggered this process in the past two years. Such a requirement would have translated into a dramatic increase in staff workload. He explained that a back-up proposal had been made to establish a ten-year time frame that would dictate that anything having to do with the University's use of land would stay in effect for ten years and was immutable. Staff concluded that it could not be applied in a fair and equitable way to other neighborhoods. Mr. Meisner praised the process that had been undertaken. He pointed out that any traffic studies would lead to further expenditures in the implementation of the resulting recommendations. He suggested staff remain diligent about seeking grant support for the studies. Ms. Nathanson commented that the University campus was like a city within a city, with a daily population that exceeded that of many of the small, rural Oregon communities. She averred that, when looking at the geography of the city, much of the traffic in the area was traversing through the campus. She suggested the study try to capture how much of the vehicular traffic simply traveled north to south or east to west. Ms. Nathanson suggested that examples of successful residential neighborhoods that abut campuses be sought to determine what to aspire to and what to avoid. She felt the City would not knowingly support or embark upon policies that would cause a neighborhood to decay. She sought some assurance that the right direction was being taken for the neighborhood. Ms. Bettman called the University of Oregon a ;~tremendous asset" to the city. She averred the neighborhood around the university was an asset as well and needed predictability and the livability of the area protected. She felt traffic to be a key issue. She thought any capital projects would be a problem due to the lack of resources. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Lowe said the dysfunction on Agate Street was due in part to pedestrian traffic. Ms. Bettman expressed concern that a pedestrian overpass, a very costly venture, would be required to mitigate the problems. Mr. Lowe responded that an underpass or overpass would not be the only options. He pointed out that diverting pedestrian traffic to signalized intersections would be a less costly and probably more effective option. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 11, 2004 Page 3 Work Session In response to another question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Lowe said the University had made it clear it would willingly participate in any required improvements that would arise from redevelopment of the area, but it would not help fund improvements to existing infrastructure. Mr. Kelly noted that, regarding parity across the city, the City had funded a transition manager for the River Road/Santa Clara area and could certainly fund the first transportation study as well. He strongly recommended the traffic calming study consider the nodal area. He agreed Agate Street was dysfunctional and averred a "little money" should be spent now in order to determine what options there were for improvement of the situation. He liked the idea of seeking out grants, but thought contingency money should be set aside should no grant options be available. Mr. Kelly remarked that, while the University was a great asset to the community, it also placed a great burden on the infrastructure of the City. He noted that an application for the construction of a new building could trigger a traffic impact analysis (TIA) which could ultimately require the University to participate in implementation of mitigation measures. Mr. Kelly reiterated his approval of the collaboration process and suggested such collaboration should be the norm. Ms. Taylor asked why Agate Street was considered to be dysfunctional. Gary McNeel, Traffic Engineer for the Public Works Department, responded that the street was partially dysfunctional in that if a person was destined for a point north and west of the University, Agate Street facilitated this. Beyond this, he asserted that people avoid it. He listed the multiple stopping points that interfere with the smooth flow of traffic and stressed that it did not function well as a minor arterial. Ms. Taylor contended it was functioning. She felt more development east of Agate Street would exacerbate the situation on the street and increase pressure on pedestrians. She did not think that the pedestrian traffic would willingly be channeled to a signalized intersection. Ms. Taylor suggested the University assume responsibility for a pedestrian overpass. Mr. Lowe responded that there was no mechanism in the City code to force the University to pay for improvements to Agate Street. Ms. Taylor supported funding the Agate Street study. Mr. Pap6 stated, regarding comments from Ms. Nathanson, that the neighborhoods to the east and south could be seen as examples of successful neighborhoods that abutted a university campus. Mr. Kelly related that a larger concern in relation to traffic on Agate Street expressed by the neighborhood was not the traffic on that particular street per se, but the traffic caused on side streets by people trying to avoid the traffic difficulties presented by Agate Street. B. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning the Citizen Involvement Committee and Amending Sections 2.013 and 2.350 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4856, an ordinance concerning the Citizen Involvement Committee. Mr. Taylor explained that this item was an administrative clean-up item for work done during the budget review. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 11, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Kelly agreed this was administrative clean-up. He reiterated his disappointment that the Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC) had been defunded. He declared the CIC to be a focal point for public participation. Ms. Taylor opined the action was a "burial" and not a clean-up. Ms. Bettman opposed the dissolution of the CIC. She underscored that the intention of the CIC was to increase citizen involvement in a multitude of projects. Regarding the land use issue mandated by the State, Ms. Bettman asserted the Planning Commission had not reviewed a citizen involvement plan for minor land use code amendments. She asked how the Planning Commission was going to approach it at this point. Planning and Development Executive Director Tom Coyle responded that for the minor code amendment process, Planning Division staff would notify the community and home builders and would hold a work session. He stressed that the 12- to 18- month process had not started at this point. He explained that the citizen involvement component of the land use process would begin subsequent to the City Council approval of the prioritization of the Planning Division work plan. Ms. Nathanson asked if the City provided advice to various departments on how to create an ad or a handout to solicit citizen involvement. Mr. Taylor replied that, since 1976, the ideas and expertise that the CIC articulated were well-embedded in City practices. He felt many of the ideas were incorporated into how the City conducted business on a regular basis. In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Taylor said staff would encourage that any inadequate notices be brought to their attention. Mr. Pap~ reiterated that continuing the CIC with a limited budget would continue the diminishing results from it. He felt the City internet was a tremendous resource for citizen involvement in City processes. He was also pleased with the complaint response process at City Hall. He could not agree with the contention that the dissolution of the CIC meant the death of citizen involvement, and added obviously such involvement had not ceased. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to extend time for this discussion by five minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Taylor asked how home builders were notified. Mr. Coyle responded that they were notified via e- mail. Ms. Taylor averred that a more equitable system of noticing would require the Lane County Homebuilders Association to be noticed through a quarter-page ad like the rest of the citizenry. She asserted many people do not read the newspaper or have access to the internet. She felt the CIC ensured that dedicated citizens from the voters' pool participated in the decision process. Mr. Meisner supported the motion. He stated that citizen involvement had been most impacted by a City Council decision in 1992 which eliminated "dozens" of committees and, by virtue of this elimination, curtailed citizen access to involvement. He related that every year the CIC had been asked to look at new and different ways of reaching out to citizens and every year the committee responded that it would need additional funding to do so. Mr. Meisner expressed hope the City not only consider existing best practices but, was also is imaginative in looking for new ways to inform and attract citizens to involvement. He agreed with Ms. Taylor that the internet did not reach everyone. He opined that, in practice, use of the voter pool resulted in the same people participating on committees. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 11, 2004 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Bettman commented that the Mayor often said he wished a broader range of people would testify at public hearings. She asserted the CIC, when it was adequately funded, had the ability to bring more citizens to speak to issues. She added that the CIC had been integral in the creation of the voter pool. She felt feedback from the public had deteriorated without it and declared she would not be voting for the ordinance. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Taylor said the new advisory group of key employees with public involvement experience had yet to be named, but the talent had been identified. He stated that he would provide the list of who would be on this committee via e-mail to Mr. Kelly. Mayor Torrey called for the vote. The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly voting no. C. ACTION: Roosevelt Yard Property Acquisition Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to authorize the City Manager to move forward with the purchase of the property as soon as possible using the financing plan described in the Agenda Item Summary and to include the inter-fund loan and other necessary appropriation changes for the purchase in the next supplemental budget. Mr. Meisner said he would support the ;;discreet motion" before the council, but felt the master plan should have been brought before the council and not just passed administratively. Mr. Meisner conveyed his satisfaction with the response to his concerns regarding liability. He stressed that the City was self-insured and should be vigilant in monitoring activity in the area of the proposed purchase. Additionally, Mr. Meisner noted the property would remain on property tax roles so long as it was leased to tenants. He recommended that it remain leased out until the City was ready to prepare the property for Public Works uses. Mr. Kelly opposed the motion. He suggested potential efficiencies in Public Works that could come about due to partnerships with the County could dramatically change the master plan and the need for the land. He added that the interfund loan would take from the Road Capital Fund and the Stormwater Fund, which were both in need of funding. Mr. Pap6 remarked that the council should have been %rought into the loop earlier" due to the amount of money involved. In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Taylor assured him that the approval of the financing plan and the adoption of the supplemental budget would guarantee the way the interfund loans would be made and that they would be repaid from the $160,000 in annualized revenues. He stressed this was one-time money used as an investment to complete the land assemblage for the Roosevelt Master Plan. Mr. Pap6 said he would support the motion because, should the property prove to be unneeded, it could be turned over at a profit. Mr. Poling agreed that staff should have brought the council into this property purchase earlier. He echoed Mr. Meisner's comment that the property should remain rented until the City was ;;ready to turn dirt." MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 11, 2004 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Poling felt the County was not likely to share the property as it seemed to be moving out more toward the periphery of the City. He supported the motion. Ms. Bettman asserted the property was contaminated. She felt she could not support the financing or the acquisition. She remarked that this was a demonstration of fiscal discipline and that, as the purchase was not a city-wide priority, she would do as staff often urged the council to do and exercise this discipline. She repeated her concern regarding the size of the property and her assertion that data projecting a staff increase of 40 people was erroneous. Ms. Solomon informed the council that an environmental report had been published on the site and it was determined to be clean. Mr. Taylor corroborated this. Ms. Solomon supported the motion. She opined the City should not own too much property, however. She asked how much property the City currently owned and if excess property was being sold. Mr. Carlson responded, stating the City had been successful in selling such properties, having recently sold three fire stations, the parking lot across from the library, and a large portion of City-owned land in the Danebo area. Ms. Taylor called it "misplaced priorities and land speculation." She opined there was too much money at stake and continued rent income was not a certainty. Mr. Meisner reiterated that he regarded it as an investment. He expected the City to make the property a revenue-producer. He concurred with Ms. Bettman that it was more land than needed and suggested the City sell a portion of it. Ms. Nathanson said it was an investment and "an important way of avoiding potential cost in the future." Mayor Torrey called for the vote. The motion passed, 5:3 (Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition). Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 1:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) M: 120041Central Services DepartmentlCity Councillcc04021 lml. wpd MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 11, 2004 Page 7 Work Session EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Approval of Tentative Working Agenda Meeting Date: March 8, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 2B Department: City Manager's Office Staff Contact: Lynda Rose www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5017 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY This is a routine item to approve City Council Tentative Working Agenda. BACKGROUND Council Action History On July 31, 2000, the City Council held a process session and discussed the Operating Agreements. Section 2, notes in part that "The City Manager shall recommend monthly to the Council which items should be placed on the Council agenda. This recommendation shall be placed on the consent calendar at the regular Council meetings (regular meetings are those meetings held on the second and fourth Mondays of each month in the Council Chamber). If the recommendation contained in the consent calendar is approved, the items shall be brought before Council on a future agenda. If there are concerns about an item, the item may be pulled from the consent calendar at the request of any councilor or the Mayor. A vote shall occur to determine if the item should be included as future Council business." Scheduling of this item is in accordance with the council operating agreements. Policy Issues There are no policy issues related to this item. Timing This item is not time-sensitive. OPTIONS The council may choose to approve, amend or not approve this tentative agenda. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff has no recommendation on this item. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the items on the Tentative Working Agenda. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040308\S0403082B.doc ATTACHMENTS A. Tentative Working Agenda FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lynda Rose Telephone: 682-5017 Staff E-Mail: lynda.l.rose~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040308\S0403082B.doc ATTACHMENT A Eugene City Council Tentative Working Agenda March 4, 2004 [MARCH 8 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. Items from Mayor, City Council, and City Manager 20 mins B. Approval of Motion to Postpone Ordinance Concerning Amendments to the Riverfront Research Park Urban Renewal Plan to March 10, 2004 5 mins - PDD/Weinman C. WS: Ordinance Concerning Alley Assessment Revisions 45 mins - PW/Schoening D. WS: Central Area Transportation Study (pending approval of Item B) 40 mins - PW/Henry 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Council Chamber Expected Absences: 1. Public Forum 2. Consent Calendar a. Approval of City Council Minutes CS/Rose b. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda CS/Rose c. Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Remaining Parks and Open Space Bonds CS/Cutsogeorge d. ^dd'l CDBG Funds for Site Acquisition and Business Development Fund PDD/Dawson 3. PH & ACTION: City of Eugene: Supplemental Budget #2 CS/Murdoch 4. URA: PH & ACTION: Supplemental Budget #2 CS/Murdoch 5. ACTION: Ordinance Levying Assessments for Lone Oak Drive (PH before hearings officer) PW/Klope 6. ACTION: East Campus Plan Amendments (WS: 2/15; PH: 2/23; WS: 2/25) PDD/Lowe [MARCH 10 WEDNESDAY 12 p.m. Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. ACTION: Ordinance Concerning Amendments to the Riverfront Research Park Urban Renewal Plan (WS: 11/19; PH: 2/9) (pending approval of Item B on March 8) 15 mins - PDD/Weinman B. WS and POSS. ACTION: Follow Up to Joint Public Hearing on 2/10/04 Re: Periodic Review of the Metro Plan 45 mins - PDD/Yeiter ** C. ACTION: Ord. Adopt. Haz. Substance User Fees for the FY Starting 7/1/04 (new date) 30 mins -Fire/EMS/Potter [APRIL 7 WEDNESDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Process Session EPL-Bascom Room Expected Absences: A. [APRIL 12 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. Items from Mayor, City Council, and City Manager 20 mins B. WS: Franchise Fee Audit: Comcast Cable 45 mins - CS/Berrian C. WS: Update on Downtown Ordinance 45 mins - EPD/Phelps 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Council Chamber Expected Absences: 1. Public Forum 2. Consent Calendar a. Approval of City Council Minutes CS/Rose b. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda CS/Rose c. Approval of 2004-05 CDGB PDD/Dawson d. Approval of HOME Funding Allocations PDD/Dawson **=new/rescheduled item; T=tentative; A=action; PH=public hearing; WS=work session L:\CMO\CC\internalCCAGENDAextend2004.wpd ATTACHMENT A Eugene City Council Tentative Working Agenda March 4, 2004 e. Resolution Forming a Local Improvement District for Garden Way PW/Klope 3. PH: Ordinance Concerning Alley Assessment Revisions (WS: 3/18; A: 5/10) PW/Schoening 4. PH and POSS. ACTION: Ord. Concerning Changes to Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Collection PDD/Cuyler 5. ACTION: Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) (WS: 11/12; PH: 2/9) PDD/Weinman [APRIL 14 WEDNESDAY 12 p.m. Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. WS: Priorities for the Planning and Development Department 45 mins - PDD/Coyle B. WS: Cell Tower Siting 45 mins - PDD/Coyle [APRIL 21 WEDNESDAY 12 p.m. Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. ACTION: Downtown Plan 30 mins- PDD/Yeiter B. [APRIL 26 MONDAY **.UD~ET COMMITTEE1 5:30-9 p.m. Budget Committee Bascom-Tykeson/EPL Expected Absences: Kelly A. [APRIL 28 WEDNESDAY 12 p.m. Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: Kelly A. WS: Police Building Financing 45 mins - CS/Svendsen B. WS: Ordinance RE: Refinement Plan Amendment: Eugene Arterial and Collector Street Plar~5 mins - PW/McNeel [MAY 3 MONDAY 5:30-9 p.m. Budget Committee Bascom-Tykeson/EPL Expected Absences: [MAY 10 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. Items from Mayor, City Council, and City Manager 20 mins B. WS: Public Works Accreditation 45 mins- PW/Corey ** C. WS: Downtown Work Plan 30 mins- PDD/Yeiter 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Council Chamber Expected Absences: 1. Public Forum 2. Consent Calendar a. Approval of City Council Minutes CS/Rose b. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda CS/Rose 3. PH: Ord. Concerning Refinement Plan Amendment: Eugene Arterial and Collector Street Plan PW/McNeel 4. ACTION: Ordinance Concerning Alley Assessment Revisions (WS: 3/15; PH: 4/12) PW/Schoening 5. ACTION (if necessary): Ord. Concerning Changes to Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Collectio~PDD/Cuyler [MAY 12 WEDNESDAY 12 p.m. Council Work Session **=new/rescheduled item; T=tentative; A=action; PH=public hearing; WS=work session L:\CMO\CC\internalCCAGENDAextend2004.wpd ATTACHMENT A Eugene City Council Tentative Working Agenda March 4, 2004 McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. Cultural Services Update 45 mins - LRCS/Jones 5:30-9 p.m. Budget Committee Bascom-Tykeson/EPL Expected Absences: [MAY 17 MONDAY 5:30-9 p.m. Budget Committee Bascom-Tykeson/EPL Expected Absences: A. Public Hearing IMAY 19 WEDNESDAY 12 p.m. Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: ** A. WS: Proposed Modifications to MWMC Regional Wastewater Systems Development Charge 45 mins - PW/McVey 5:30-9 p.m. Budget Committee Bascom-Tykeson/EPL Expected Absences: [MAY 24 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. Items from Mayor, City Council, and City Manager 20 mins B. WS: Banning/Controlling Location of "Big Box" Stores 45 mins - PDD/Coyle C. WS: Housing Standards 45 mins- PDD/Miller 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Council Chamber Expected Absences: 1. Public Forum 2. Consent Calendar a. Approval of City Council Minutes CS/Rose b. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda CS/Rose c. Approval of MWMC FY04 Budget PW/Ruffier 3. ACTION: Ord. Concerning Refinement Plan Amendment: Eugene Arterial and Collector Street Plan PW/McNeel [MAY 26 WEDNESDAY 12 p.m. Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. WS: City Manager Evaluation 90 mins - CS/Chouinard 5:30-9 p.m. Budget Committee Bascom-Tykeson/EPL Expected Absences: A. Approval of FY05 Budget [JUNE 9 WEDNESDAY 12 p.m. Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. [JUNE 14 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. Items from Mayor, City Council, and City Manager 20 mins 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Council Chamber Expected Absences: **=new/rescheduled item; T=tentative; A=action; PH=public hearing; WS=work session L:\CMO\CC\internalCCAGENDAextend2004.wpd ATTACHMENT A Eugene City Council Tentative Working Agenda March 4, 2004 1. Public Forum 2. Consent Calendar a. Approval of City Council Minutes CS/Rose b. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda CS/Rose ** 3. PH: Proposed Modifications to MWMC Regional Wastewater Systems Development Charge PW/McVey [JUNE 16 WEDNESDAY 12 p.m. Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. [JUNE 23 WEDNESDAY 12 p.m. Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: ** A. WS: Airport Fire and Rescue Services 45 mins - PW/Corey & Fire/EMS/Tallon [JUNE 28 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. Items from Mayor, City Council, and City Manager 20 mins 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Council Chamber Expected Absences: 1. Public Forum 2. Consent Calendar a. Approval of City Council Minutes CS/Rose b. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda CS/Rose 3. PH & ACTION: City of Eugene: Supplemental Budget #3 CS/Murdoch 4. URA: PH & ACTION: Supplemental Budget #3 CS/Murdoch ** 5. ACTION: Proposed Modifications to MWMC Regional Wastewater Systems Development Charge PW/McVey 6. ACTION: FY05 Budget CS/Murdoch [JUNE 30 WEDNESDAY 12 p.m. Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. [JULY 12 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: A. Items from Mayor, City Council, and City Manager 20 mins 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Council Chamber Expected Absences: 1. Public Forum 2. Consent Calendar a. Approval of City Council Minutes CS/Rose b. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda CS/Rose [JULY 14 WEDNESDAY 12 p.m. Council Work Session McNutt Room Expected Absences: ** A. WS: Ord. Concerning Amendments to Downtown Urban Renewal Plan (PH: $/9; A: 9/13) 45 mins - PDD/Weinman **=new/rescheduled item; T=tentative; A=action; PH=public hearing; WS=work session L:\CMO\CC\internalCCAGENDAextend2004.wpd EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Approval of Resolution 4787 of the City of Eugene, Oregon Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of the City's General Obligation Parks and Open Spaces Bonds in a Principal Amount of Not More Than $6,305,000 Meeting Date: March 8, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 2C Department: Central Services Staff Contact: Sue Cutsogeorge www. cl. euget~e, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5589 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY The council is asked to approve the issuance of debt to fund the remaining parks and open space projects approved by voters. BACKGROUND Council Action History In July 1998, the council submitted a measure to the voters authorizing the issuance of $25,305,000 of general obligation bonds to purchase parkland, build parks and youth sports fields, and replace Amazon Pool. In November 1998, voters approved the measure. In June 1999, the council authorized the issuance of a first series of up to $20 million of the parks and open spaces bonds. In August 1999, the City issued $19 million of parks and open space bonds. The bond issue was sized at $19 million due to IRS regulations regarding the expected amount of bond proceeds that could be spent over a three year period. Policy Issues Should the City issue the balance of general obligation bonds approved by voters for parks and open spaces purposes? Council Goal Action Priority None. Financial and/or Resource Considerations The voters authorized $25,305,000 of general obligation bonds for parks and open space purposes, and the City has issued $19 million of those bonds. In order to complete the list of projects that was developed in conjunction with the bond measure, the City must now issue the remaining bonds. Approximately $1.1 million of cash is left in the bond fund from the first bond issue. It is expected that this cash will be depleted prior to fiscal year end. The proceeds from the next bond issue are expected to be received by early May in order to ensure continued availability of cash to fund the parks and open space projects. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040308\S0403082C.doc The City's projected net direct debt outstanding as of June 30, 2004, including these bonds, is $47.4 million, which is 0.42% of real market value. This is well below the newly revised debt policy that allows a maximum net direct debt outstanding of 1.0% of real market value. Other Background Information None. Timing A bond issuance schedule has been developed that would result in a competitive bond sale on April 21, 2004, with bond proceeds to be transferred to the City at a closing on May 5. Offering documents will be sent out on April 2. OPTIONS The council can either adopt the resolution or not adopt the resolution. If the resolution is not adopted, the City will not be able to issue the remaining parks and open spaces bonds and will not be able to complete the parks and open space projects authorized by the voters. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the council approve the resolution. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to adopt Resolution 4787 of the City of Eugene, Oregon authorizing the issuance and sale of the City's General Obligation Parks and Open Spaces Bonds in a principal amount of not more than $6,305,000. ATTACHMENTS A. Resolution FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Sue Cutsogeorge Telephone: 682-5589 Staff E-Mail: sue.l.cutsogeorge~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040308\S0403082C.doc ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, OREGON AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF THE CITY'S GENERAL OBLIGATION PARKS AND OPEN SPACES BONDS IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT MORE THAN $6,305,000. The City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, finds as follows: A. The voters of the City of Eugene (the "City") authorized the City to issue $25,305,000 of general obligation bonds (the "Authorization") at the general election held on November 3, 1998, to finance the purchase of parkland, the building of parks and youth sports fields and replacement of Amazon Pool. B. The City has previously issued its General Obligation Bonds, Series 1999 (Parks and Open Spaces) in the principal amount of $19,000,000 on August 17, 1999 under the Authorization. C. It is now desirable to issue $6,305,000 of those bonds for the purposes approved by the voters at the November 3, 1998 election. D. The City has appointed bond counsel pursuant to ORS 288.523. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eugene, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows: Section 1. Bonds authorized. The City Council of the City hereby authorizes the issuance, sale and delivery of one or more series of its General Obligation Parks and Open Spaces Bonds (the "Bonds") for the purposes described in the ballot measure submitted to the City's voters at the November 3, 1998 election and to pay costs of issuing the Bonds. The principal amount of the Bonds shall not exceed $6,305,000. Section 2. Delegation. If the City Manager or the person designated by the City Manager to act on behalf of the City pursuant to this Resolution (the "City Official") determines to issue a series of Bonds, the City Official is hereby authorized and directed, on behalf of the City and without further action by the Council, to: (1) Participate in the preparation of, authorize the distribution of, and deem final any official statement or other disclosure documents relating to each series of the Bonds. (2) Establish the final principal amounts, maturity schedules, interest rates, sale prices and discount, prepayment terms, payment terms and dates, and other terms of each series of Bonds. Page 1 - Resolution J:\HWR\CITIES\EUGENE\2004 GO PARKS & OPEN SPACES\RESOLUTION (FINAL2).DOC (3) Execute and deliver a bond declaration for each series of Bonds, specifying the terms under which each series of Bonds are issued, and making covenants for the benefit of Bondowners, including covenants to protect the tax-exempt status of the Bonds. (4) Solicit competitive proposals for the purchase of any series of Bonds and award the sale of that series to the proposer offering the most favorable terms to the City, or select one or more underwriters, negotiate the terms of the sale of any series of Bonds, and sell that series to those underwriters. (5) Undertake to provide continuing disclosure for each series of Bonds in accordance with Rule 15 c2-12 of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. (6) Apply for ratings for each series of Bonds, determine whether to purchase municipal bond insurance or obtain other forms of credit enhancements for each series of Bonds, enter into agreements with the providers of credit enhancement, and execute and deliver related documents. (7) Appoint a paying agent for the Bonds and negotiate the terms of and execute an agreement with such paying agent. (8) Execute and deliver each series of Bonds to their purchaser. (9) Execute and deliver any agreements or certificates and take any other action in connection with each series of Bonds which the City Official finds is desirable to permit the sale and issuance of that series of Bonds in accordance with this Resolution. Section 3. Security for Bonds. The Bonds shall be general obligations of the City. The City hereby pledges its full faith and credit to pay the Bonds, and the City covenants for the benefit of the Bondowners that the City shall levy annually, as provided by law, in addition to its other ad valorem property taxes and outside the limitations of Sections 11 and 1 lb of Article IX of the Oregon Constitution, a direct ad valorem tax upon all of the taxable property within the City in sufficient amount, after considering discounts taken and delinquencies that may occur in the payment of such taxes, to pay the Bonds promptly as they mature. Section 4. Tax-Exempt Status. The City covenants to use the proceeds of the Bonds and to otherwise comply with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), so that interest paid on the Bonds will not be includable in gross income of the Bondowners. The City Official may enter into additional covenants on behalf of the City to protect the tax-exempt status of the Bonds. Section 5. Form and Execution. Each Bond shall be in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, with such changes as may be approved by the City Official. The Bonds shall be executed on behalf of the City with the facsimile or manual signatures of the City Official. Section 6. Reimbursement. The regulations issued under Section 150 of the Code require that an issuer of tax-exempt obligations declare its intention to use proceeds of tax-exempt obligations to reimburse expenditures. The City Council hereby declares its intention to use Bond proceeds (or the proceeds of any interim financing) to reimburse the City for costs of the Parks and Open Page 2 - Resolution J:\HWR\CITIES\EUGENE\2004 GO PARKS & OPEN SPACES\RESOLUTION (FINAL2).DOC Spaces which are eligible for financing with the Bonds. The City Council hereby delegates to the City Official the authority to make future reimbursement declarations under Section 150 of the Code and any successor provision. Section 7. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. The foregoing Resolution adopted this __ day of 2004. City Recorder Page 3 - Resolution J:\HWR\CITIES\EUGENE\2004 GO PARKS & OPEN SPACES\RESOLUTION (FINAL2).DOC Exhibit A Form of Bond No. R-<<BondNumber>> $<<PrincipalAmtNumber>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF LANE CITY OF EUGENE GENERAL OBLIGATION PARKS AND OPEN SPACES BOND SERIES 200 Dated Date: Interest Rate Per Annum: <<CouponRate>>% Maturity Date: __, <<MaturityYear>> CUSIP Number: <<CUSIPNumbr>> Registered Owner: ..... Cede & Co.- .... Principal Amount: ..... <<PrincipalAmtSpelled>> Dollars ..... The City of Eugene, Oregon (the "City"), for value received, acknowledges itself indebted and hereby promises to pay to the Registered Owner hereof, or registered assigns, the Principal Amount indicated above on the Maturity Date indicated above together with interest thereon from the date hereof at the Interest Rate Per Annum indicated above, computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. Interest is payable semiannually on the first day of__ and the first day of__ in each year until maturity or prior redemption, commencing . Payment of each installment of interest shall be made on the payment date to the Registered Owner hereof whose name appears on the registration books of the City maintained by the City's paying agent and registrar, which is currently __ (the "Registrar"), as the Registered Owners appear on the registration books as of the close of business on the fifteenth (15th) day of the calendar month immediately preceding the applicable interest payment date. For so long as this Bond is subject to a book-entry-only system, principal and interest payments shall be paid on each payment date to the nominee of the securities depository for the Bonds. On the date of issuance of this Bond, the securities depository for the Bonds is The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York, and Cede & Co. is the nominee of The Depository Trust Company. Such payments shall be made payable to the order of "Cede & Co." This bond is one of a duly authorized series of bonds aggregating $ in principal amount designated as General Obligation Parks and Open Spaces Bonds, Series 200_ (the "Bonds"). The Bonds are issued for the purpose of financing and related costs. The Bonds are issued under and pursuant to Resolution No. __ of the City adopted on __ and a Bond Declaration executed pursuant to that resolution (the "Declaration"). The Bonds are issued in full and strict accordance and compliance with all of the provisions of the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Oregon and the Charter of the City. The Bonds constitute valid and legally binding obligations of the City. The full faith and credit of the City are pledged for the punctual payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds. The City has pledged and is obligated by law to provide for the levy and collection annually of ad valorem taxes without limitation as to rate or amount on all taxable property within the boundaries of the City to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds. The Bonds do not constitute a debt or indebtedness of Lane County, the State of Oregon, or any political subdivision thereof other than the City. The rights and obligations of the City and the Registered Owners with respect to the Bonds are subject to the terms of the Declaration dated ___, 2004. Page 1 - (Exhibit A to Resolution) The Bonds are initially issued as a book-entry-only security issue with no certificates provided to the beneficial owners. Records of ownership of beneficial interests in the Bonds will be maintained by The Depository Trust Company and its participants. Should the book-entry only security system be discontinued, the Bonds shall be issued in the form of registered Bonds without coupons in denominations of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof. Such Bonds may be exchanged for Bonds of the same principal amount, interest rate and maturity date, but different authorized denominations, as provided in the Declaration. The Bonds shall mature and be subject to redemption as described in the Declaration and the Final Official Statement for the Bonds which is dated ., 2004. Unless the book-entry-only system is discontinued, notice of any call for redemption shall be given as required by the Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations to The Depository Trust Company, as referenced in the Declaration. Interest on any Bond or Bonds so called for redemption shall cease on the redemption date designated in the notice. The Registrar will notify The Depository Trust Company promptly of any Bonds called for redemption not less than 30 days prior to the date fixed for redemption. If the book-entry-only system is discontinued, notice of redemption shall be given by first-class mail, postage prepaid, not less than thirty days nor more than sixty days prior to the date fixed for redemption to the registered owner of each Bond to be redeemed at the address shown on the bond register; however, any failure to give notice shall not invalidate the redemption of the Bonds. All Bonds called for redemption shall cease to bear interest from the date designated in the notice. Any exchange or transfer of this Bond must be registered, as provided in the Declaration, upon the bond register kept for that purpose by the Registrar. The exchange or transfer of this Bond may be registered only by surrendering it, together with a written instrument of exchange or transfer which is satisfactory to the Registrar and which is executed by the registered owner or duly authorized attorney. Upon registration, a new registered Bond or Bonds, of the same series and maturity and in the same principal amount, shall be issued to the transferee as provided in the Declaration. The City and the Registrar may treat the person in whose name this Bond is registered on the bond register as its absolute owner for all purposes, as provided in the Declaration. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED, RECITED, AND DECLARED that all conditions, acts, and things required to exist, to happen, and to be performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond have existed, have happened, and have been performed in due time, form, and manner as required by the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Oregon and the Charter of the City; and that the issue of which this Bond is a part, and all other obligations of the City, are within every debt limitation and other limit prescribed by such Constitution and Statutes and City Charter; and that the City has covenanted to levy a tax upon all taxable property within the City in an amount sufficient, with other available funds, to pay when due the interest on and the principal of the Bonds. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, has authorized this Bond to be signed by facsimile signature of its City Official as of the __ day of__ City of Eugene, Oregon City Official Page 2 - (Exhibit A to Resolution) THIS BOND SHALL NOT BE VALID UNLESS PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED BY THE REGISTRAR IN THE SPACE INDICATED BELOW. This Bond is one of a series of $__ principal amount of City of Eugene, Oregon General Obligation Parks and Open Spaces Bonds, Series 200_, issued pursuant to the Declaration described herein. Date of authentication: __., 2004. ., as Registrar Authorized Officer ASSIGNMENT FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned sells, assigns and transfers unto (Please insert social security or other identifying number of assignee) this Bond and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint as attorney to transfer this Bond on the books kept for registration thereof with the full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: NOTICE: The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name of the registered owner as it appears upon the face of this Bond in every particular, without alteration or enlargement or any change whatever. NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a member of the New- York Signature Guaranteed Stock Exchange or a commercial bank or trust company (Bank, Trust Company or Brokerage Finn) Authorized Officer The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this Bond, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations. TEN COM -- tenants in common TEN ENT -- as tenants by the entireties JT TEN -- as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common OREGON CUSTODIANS use the following CUST UL OREG MIN as custodian for (name of minor) OR UNIF TRANS MIN ACT under the Oregon Uniform Transfer to Minors Act Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the list above. Page 3 - (Exhibit A to Resolution) EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Approval of Additional Community Development Block Grant Funds for Site Acquisition and Business Development Fund Meeting Date: March 8, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 2D Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Linda Dawson www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5071 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY The City Council is being asked to approve the reprogramming of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to purchase the northern three acres of the Westmoreland School site for future low-income housing development and to provide additional job creation loans through the Business Development Fund. BACKGROUND Council Action History Annually in the spring, the City Council approves funding allocations for two Federal grant programs for the upcoming fiscal year: the CDBG program and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME). The annual funding allocations, or One-Year Action Plans, are done in the context of the five- year Housing and Urban Development Consolidated Plan. The CDBG Advisory Committee advises the Planning and Development Department on the use of CDBG funds. The CDBG grant funds housing rehabilitation, land acquisition for low-income housing developments, public services, non-profit capital improvements, accessibility improvements, neighborhood improvements, micro-enterprise training, and business development loans. The intergovernmental Housing Policy Board (HPB) recommends the use of CDBG funds to acquire sites for low-income housing development and HOME funds for affordable housing opportunities. Policy Issues U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations require a citizen participation process, including advertising and conducting a public hearing, followed by City Council action. Council Goals The use of CDBG funds is guided by the five-year HUD Consolidated Plan and supports Eugene as a comfortable, attractive and affordable place to live and work. Financial and/or Resource Considerations Expending CDBG funds is a high priority in order to meet the annual HUD "timeliness test." If the test is not met, future grant awards could be reduced. This test has fundamentally changed how staff and the CDBG Advisory Committee approached allocations in recent years. More emphasis is being placed on funding "ready to go" projects. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040308\S0403082D.doc Other Background Information School Site Acquisition During the past year, School District 4-J identified Westmoreland as one among a number of surplus school sites to be offered for sale. This site is an attractive housing landbank site, given the difficulty of locating suitable land in the current market. This site offers an opportunity to secure a large, viable site for future low-income housing development. In July 2003, the HPB approved a subcommittee recommendation to acquire approximately three acres at a number of surplus school sites. They placed a high priority of the acquisition of the Westmoreland site. The City is coordinating with the school district on the purchase of approximately three acres at the Westmoreland site. The appraised value for 3.55 acres of the Westmoreland property is $480,000. For purposes of timeliness in expending funds, the City would like to purchase this site in April 2004. After the purchase of the West 8th Avenue site last month, a balance of only $389,400 remains in available CDBG funds. The CDBG Advisory Committee is recommending that the shortfall of approximately $100,000 be reprogrammed from housing rehabilitation program funds. Although this would reduce the estimated carry-forward in the housing rehabilitation program in 2004-05, there would still be adequate funds for projected loan activity. The CDBG Advisory Committee conducted a public hearing on March 3, 2004, on the reprogramming of the $100,000 needed to complete the transaction and recommended the action. At noon on March 8, 2004, the HPB will conduct a public hearing on the use of CDBG funds for the acquisition and is expected to reconfirm its earlier recommendation to purchase the site. Reprogramming Funds for Business Development Loans On September 22, 2003, the City Council approved five non-profit capital projects to receive CDBG funding in 2003-04. An allocation of $170,000 to improve the Heeran Center on Coburg Road was one of the projects. The approval of this allocation was a key piece in an application submitted by Lane County for federal funding to operate a federally-qualified health center. Lane County was successful in obtaining the grant but has informed the City that it has signed a lease for a facility in Springfield and will not be occupying the Heeran Center as proposed. The $170,000 previously allocated to this project is available for reprogramming. The Business Development Fund (BDF) makes loans to emerging and expanding small businesses in the community that create jobs for low-income individuals. The BDF manages a current loan portfolio of $3 million and has placed $1.74 million in the last eighteen months. For purposes of"timeliness," it would be best to fully expend the $170,000 in previously allocated funds by April 2004. The Business Development Fund is structured to be able to spend funds in a short time frame. Currently, all available loan funds have been committed and there are several applications pending. The CDBG Advisory Committee reviewed this option in February 2004, conducted a public hearing on March 3, 2004, and recommends the reprogramming action. Timing It is important to allocate funds in areas most likely to spend in a timely manner. These expenditures along with other ongoing programs and projects will facilitate the City in meeting the HUD "timeliness" test conducted on May 1. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040308\S0403082D.doc OPTIONS The council may approve or not approve the proposed actions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the reprogramming actions as recommended by the CDBG Advisory Committee and site acquisition as recommended by the HPB. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve reprogramming $100,000 from the Housing Rehabilitation Program to be used with other CDBG funds to acquire the Westmoreland School site estimated to cost $480,000, and $170,000 from the Heeran Center non-profit capital project to the Business Development Fund for job creation loans. ATTACHMENTS None. FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Linda Dawson Telephone: 682-5071 Staff E-Mail: linda.l.dawson~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040308\S0403082D.doc EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Public Hearing and Action: Resolution 4788 Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2003 and Ending June 30, 2004 Meeting Date: March 8, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 3 Department: Central Services Staff Contact: Kitty Murdoch or Nikki Parness www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5021 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY This is the second Supplemental Budget for FY04. Oregon Local Budget Law (ORS 294.480) allows for supplemental budgets for "an occurrence.., which had not been ascertained at the time of the preparation of a budget for the current year..." Supplemental Budget #2 increases expenditure authority by $3.19 million in the FY2004 Adopted Budget. A brief description of the proposed transactions is provided in Attachment A. This supplemental budget does not authorize any increased property tax levy. BACKGROUND Council Action History Not applicable. Policy Issues Not applicable. Other Background Information For this Supplemental Budget, the proposed changes fall into the following categories. Examples of each type are given below: Transactions Related to Beginning Working Capital One request increases the General Fund's Beginning Working Capital by $21,829 and the Reserve for Revenue Shortfall by the same amount. This reconciles the FY04 Budgeted Beginning Working Capital to the FY04 Actual Beginning Working Capital as determined by Grove, Mueller & Swank P.C., the City's external auditor. Uses of General Fund Contingency On January 26, 2004, the council approved a request to move $50,000 from the General Fund Contingency to the Planning and Development operating budget to support the Mayor's Ad Hoc L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040308\S0403083.doc Economic Development Citizen Task Force. Funds will be used to hire an outside contractor specializing in local economic issues to complete research for the task force. If this request is approved, the balance in the General Fund contingency account will be $269,922. A spreadsheet listing the contingency request and the account balance is included as Attachment B. Recognition of New Revenue These transactions recognize unanticipated revenue and increase operating or capital appropriations or non-departmental accounts. This supplemental budget recognizes: $227,511 in new grant revenue in the General Fund for the Library Ready to Read Grant, the Three Flags Traffic Safety Grant, and the State Domestic Preparedness Equipment Program Grant and increases the department operating budgets by the same amount. ,/' $99,001 in revenue in the General Fund for reimbursable overtime and miscellaneous revenue and increases the department operating budget by the same amount. $263,750 in grant revenue in the Stormwater Utility Fund from the Bureau of Land Management for the West Eugene Wetlands project and from the Oregon Park and Recreation Department for the Delta Ponds Recreation project and increases capital by $250,000 for improvements at Delta Ponds and operating and non-departmental budget by the remaining $13,750. $800,000 in new revenue in the Risk Management Fund from insurance reimbursements to cover claims that exceed the City's stop loss limit. Increase the department operating budget by the same amount. Other Significant Changes The request moves $500,000 in the General Fund's Hospital Siting Reserve, created by the council on December 1, 2003, to the Central Services operating budget to be used for project-related expenses. Another request increases appropriations in the Library, Parks, and Recreation Special Revenue Fund to give the Oregon Community Foundation $1,000,000 once an endowment agreement is reached and reviewed by the City Attorney. This money was donated to the City by Ruel Gierhart for the sole purpose of benefiting the Library. A letter detailing the plan was sent to councilors on February 26, 2004. Capital Budget Adjustments A series of adjustments appropriates $1,625,000 to purchase land adjacent to the Public Works Roosevelt Yard maintenance facility, in accordance with the financing plan approved by the council on February 9, 2004. The property will be jointly owned by the General Fund, the Road Fund, the Fleet Fund, Stormwater Fund, and the Local Wastewater Fund as programs based in each of these funds will operate from future facilities located on the property. This purchase is financed by a three-year loan from the Fleet Fund Reserve in the amount of $1.1 million. The loan will be repaid with a combination of annual lease payments from tenants on the property and future resources within each fund. Another transaction transfers $142,426 in capital appropriation to the Special Assessment Capital Project Fund from the General and Road Capital Projects Fund ($69,306) and the System Development L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040308\S0403083.doc Capital Project Fund ($73,120) for the Lone Oak widening project. The internal transfers are required to move resources to the assessment fund where the construction will be funded. Timing In some cases, expenditure authority is needed immediately to carry out City Council direction or to meet legal or program requirements. OPTIONS Not applicable. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution adopting the Supplemental Budget. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to adopt Resolution 4788 adopting a Supplemental Budget; making appropriations for the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2003 and ending June 30, 2004. ATTACHMENTS A. Transaction Summary B. FY04 General Fund Contingency Tracking C. Resolution FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Kitty Murdoch or Nikki Parness Telephone: 682-5021 Staff E-Mail: kitty.m.murdoch~ci.eugene.or.us nikki, m. parnes s~ci. eugene, or. us L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040308\S0403083.doc ATTACHMENT A Transaction Summary 010 General Fund FY04 FY04 FY04 FY04 FY04 Adopted RFE* SB1 Action SB2Action R vis d I. RESOURCES BEGINNING WORKING CAPITAL 26,486,798 0 5,386,189 21,829 a 31,894,816 CHANGE TO WORKING CAPITAL REVENUE Taxes 69,736,997 0 0 0 69,736,997 Licenses/Permits 3,621,679 0 (1,161,467) 0 2,460,212 intergovernmental 2,328,761 0 1,319,326 227,511 b,c,d 3,875,598 Rental 65,900 0 0 0 65,900 Charges for Services 10,420,471 0 200,815 74,005 e 10,695,291 Fines/Forfeitures 2,910,080 0 0 0 2,910,080 Miscellaneous 777,448 0 (34,897) 24,996 e 767,547 Interfund Transfers 7,784,955 0 (25,000) 85,000 f 7,844,955 Fiscal Transactions 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue 97,646,291 0 298,777 411,512 98,356,580 TOTAL RESOURCES 124,133,089 0 5,684,966 433,341 130,251,396 II. REQUIREMENTS Department Operating Central Services 20,866,861 109,417 (1,085,213) 500,000 h 20,391,065 Fire/Emergency Medical Svcs 17,297,704 14,820 (10,415) 294,001 d,e 17,596,110 Planning and Development 6,051,464 132,044 3,529 50,000 g 6,237,037 Police 30,100,715 49,192 1,250,858 14,000 c 31,414,765 Library, Rec & Cultural Svcs 15,985,588 84,060 213,549 18,511 b 16,301,708 Public Works 5,325,138 89,644 101,074 0 5,515,856 Total Department Operating 95,627,470 479,177 473,382 876,512 97,456,541 Non-Departmental Debt Service 23,525 0 0 0 23,525 Interfund Loans 62,500 0 0 0 62,500 Interfund Transfers 3,099,690 0 5,679,200 85,000 f 8,863,890 intergovernmental Expend. 325,000 0 0 0 325,000 Contingency 340,000 0 (20,078) (50,000) g 269,922 Reserve (less RFE) 8,643,477 391,750 (447,538) (478,171) a,h 8,109,518 Reserve for Encumbrances 870,927 (870,927) 0 0 0 U EFB 15,140,500 0 0 0 15,140,500 Total Non-Departmental 28,505,619 (479,177) 5,211,584 (443,171) 32,794,855 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 124,133,089 0 5,684,966 433,341 130,251,396 City Council Agenda page 147 *RFE=Reserve for Encumbrance: These changes were approved by Council Reso]ution 4779 on October 27, 2003. 010 General Fund a This supplemental request increases the budgeted Beginning Working Capital by $21,829 and increases Reserve for Revenue Shortfall by the same amount. The increase brings the FY04 Budgeted Beginning Working Capital in compliance with the audited FY03 actual revenues and expenditures as determined by Grove, Mueller & Swank P.C., the City's external auditor. b This supplemental budget request recognizes $18,511 in revenue from the Library Ready to Read Grant and increases Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services budget by the same amount. c This supplemental budget request recognizes $14,000 in revenue from the Three Flags Traffic Safety Grant and increases Police budget by the same amount. d This supplemental budget request recognizes $195,000 in revenue from the State Domestic Preparedness Equipment Program Grant and increases Fire and Emergency Medical Services budget by the same amount. e This supplemental budget request recognizes $74,005 in revenue from reimbursable overtime and $24,996 in miscellaneous revenue and increases Fire and Emergency Medical Services budget by the same amount ($99,001). f This supplemental budget request increases transfer authority in the General Fund. When the Telecom and Solid Waste & Recycling Funds were reclassified as Special Revenue Funds on Supplemental Budget #1, the transfer expense was not eliminated from the General Fund. g This supplemental budget request reduces Contingency by $50,000 and increases Planning and Development budget by the same amount. On 1/26/04, Council approved the request to provide staffing support and related needs for the Mayor's Ad Hoc Economic Development Citizen Task Force. Funds will be used to hire an outside contractor, specializing in local economic issues and concerns, to complete research for the task force. h This supplemental budget request moves the $500,000 Hospital Siting Reserve as adopted by Council at FY04 SB1 to the Central Services operating budget. City Council Ag.end .a, ~oag,e.148 *RFE=Reserve for Encumbrance: These changes were approved by tJounci~ r~eso~utJon 4779 on October 27, 2003. 170 Community Development Fund FY04 FY04 FY04 FY04 Ad pted SB1 Action SB2 Action R vised I.RESOURCES BEGINNING WORKING CAPITAL 2,621,026 (304,053) 0 2,316,973 CHANGE TO WORKING CAPITAL REVENUE Intergovernmental 4,098,746 968,959 400,000 5,467,705 Charges for Services 40,980 0 0 40,980 Miscellaneous 581,800 0 0 581,800 Fiscal Transactions 1,428,000 0 293,562 1,721,562 Total Revenue 6,149,526 968,959 693,562 7,812,047 TOTAL RESOURCES 8,770,552 664,906 693,562 10,129,020 II. REQUIREMENTS Department Operating Central Services 6,000 0 0 6,000 Planning and Development 4,065,509 (704;305) 800,000 4,161,204 Total Department Operating 4,071,509 (704,305) 800,000 4,167,204 Capital Projects Capital Proiects 0 276,250 100,000 376,250 Cap. Carryover (Budget only) 2,010,144 (871,417) 0 1,138,727 Total Capital Projects 2,010,144 (595,167) 100,000 1,514,977 Non-Departmental Interfund Transfers 110,000 390,000 0 500,000 Misc. Fiscal Transactions 2,573,269 1,580,008 (206,438) 3,946,839 Balance Available 5,630 (5,630) 0 0 Total Non-Departmental 2,688,899 1,964,378 (206,438) 4,446,839 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 8,770,552 664,906 693,562 10,129,020 170 Community Development Fund This supplemental request reallocates CDBG/HOME funding based on actual capital projects vs. capital loans. It recognizes $293,562 in new revenue from the Community Development Block Grant and $400,000 from HOME funding. Capital loans are reduced by $206,438 and the capital projects and contractual services are increased by $900,000. City Council Agenda page 149 180 Library, Parks, and Recreation Special Revenue Fund FY04 FY04 FY04 FY04 Adopt d SB1 Action SB2 Acti n R vised I.RESOURCES BEGINNING WORKING CAPITAL 1,434,114 735,987 0 2,170,101 CHANGE TO WORKING CAPITAL REVENUE Intergovernmental 0 3,211 0 3,211 Charges for Services 5,000 0 0 5,000 Miscellaneous 83,120 0 29,950 a 113,070 Total Revenue 88,120 3,211 29,950 121,281 TOTAL RESOURCES 1,522,234 739,198 29,950 2,291,382 REQUIREMENTS Department Operating Library, Rec & Cultural Svcs 92,761 66,003 1,000,000 b 1,158,764 Total Department Operating 92,761 66,003 1,000,000 1,158,764 Capital Projects Capital Projects 0 0 45,424 a 45,424 Cap. Carryover (Budget only) 127,646 23,973 0 151,619 Total Capital Projects 127,646 23,973 45,424 197,043 Non-Departmental I nterfund Transfers 16,700 0 0 16,70[' Reserve (less RFE) 1,254,825 633,463 (996,210) a,b 892,07~. Balance Available 30,302 15,759 (19,264) a 26,797 Total Non-Departmental 1,301,827 649,222 (1,015,474) 935,575 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 1,522,234 739,198 29,950 2,291,382 180 Library, Parks, and Recreation Special Revenue Fund a This supplemental request recognizes donations ($29,950) made to the Hayes Trust and Parks Maintenance Funds and appropriates interest earnings from Balance Available ($19,264). The donations and interest are divided amongst reserves ($3,790) and capital line items ($45,424) based on the donors' intentions. b This supplemental request reduces the Gierhart Trust by $1,000,000 to allow funds to be moved to the Oregon Community Foundation (OCF) once an endowment agreement is reached and reviewed by the City's attorneys. City Council Agenda page 150 310 General and Road Capital Projects Fund FY04 FY04 FY04 FY04 FY04 Adopt d RFE* SB1 Acti n SB2 Action Revised ~.RESOURCES BEGINNING WORKING CAPITAL 26,590,739 0 (6,431,556) 0 20,159,183 CHANGE TO WORKING CAPITAL REVENUE Intergovernmental 2,61'7,000 0 2,291,616 109,661 a 5,018,277 Charges for Services 0 0 54,912 0 54,912 Miscellaneous 505,750 0 850,000 0 1,355,750 Interfund Transfers 1,814,500 0 1,227,271 0 3,041,771 Fiscal Transactions 66,000 0 8,395,000 471,700 c 8,932,700 Total Revenue 5,003,250 0 12,818,799 581,361 18,403,410 TOTAL RESOURCES 31,593,989 0 6,387,243 581,361 38,562,593 II. REQUIREMENTS Department Operating Central Services 2,500 13,060 0 0 15,560 Total Department Operating 2,500 13,060 0 0 15,560 Capital Projects Capital Projects 4,419,022 0 4,943,217 839,824 a,b,c 10,202,063 Cap. Carryover (Budget only) 24,254,233 0 1,225,776 0 25,480,009 Total Capital Projects 28,673,255 0 6,168,993 839,824 35,682,072 Non-Departmental Debt Service 0 0 210,000 2,949 c 212,949 Interfund Transfers 20,000 0 795,403 69,306 b 884,709 Reserve (less RFE) 325,000 0 0 0 325,000 Reserve for Encumbrances 13,060 (13,060) 0 0 0 Balance Available 2,560,174 0 (787,153) (330,718) a,c 1,442,303 Total Non-Departmental 2,918,234 (13,060) 218,250 (258,463) 2,864,961 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 31,593,989 0 6,387,243 581,361 38,562,593 310 General and Road Capital Projects Fund a This supplemental request decreases balance available ($142,706) and recognizes revenue ($109,661) from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for the construction of the Eugene Multimodal Station. The Federal TEA-21 authorization funding came in appropriations paid over six years with limitations. The final appropriation was dispersed on September 30, 2003. Spending authority for capital projects is established in the same amount ($252,367). b This supplemental request reduces the capital budget by $69,306 in order to transfer appropriation from the General Road Capital Projects Fund to the Special Assessment Capital Project Fund to provide funding for the Lone Oak widening project. c This supplemental request reconciles the General and Road Capital Projects Fund's portion of the purchase of land at the Public Works Roosevelt Yard maintenance facility. The City Council approved the financing plan to acquire the land on February 9, 2004. It recognizes an interfund loan from the Fleet Fund in the amount of $471,700, reduces balance available by $185,063, and increases the capital project budget by $656,763 for land acquisition. Interest on the interfund loan of $2,949 is budgeted, offset by a decrease to balance available. City Council Agenda page.. 151 'RFE=Reserve for Encumbrance: These changes were approved by ~;ouncil Resolu[ion 4779 on October 27, 2003. 330 System Development Capital Projects Fund FY04 FY04 FY04 FY04 Adopt d SB1 Action SB2 Action R vised I.RESOURCES BEGINNING WORKING CAPITAL 17,971,190 (3,031,340) 0 14,939,850 CHANGE TO WORKING CAPITAL REVENUE I ntergovemmental 0 1,175,417 0 1,175,417 Charges for Services 5,522,179 0 0 5,522,179 Miscellaneous 599,465 0 0 599,465 Total Revenue 6,121,644 1,175,417 0 7,297,061 TOTAL RESOURCES 24,092,834 (1,855,923) 0 22,236,911 II. REQUIREMENTS Department Operating Public Works 496,340 0 0 496,340 Total Department Operating 496,340 0 0 496,340 Capital Projects Capital Projects 4,549,000 0 (73,120) 4,475,880 Cap. Carryover (Budget only) 11,983,911 (2,274,896) 0 9,709,015 Total Capital Projects 16,532,911 (2,274,896) (73,120) 14,184,895 Non-Departmental Debt Service 364,368 0 0 364,36[ Interfund Transfers 0 0 73,120 73,120 Intergovemmental Expend. 690,000 0 0 690,000 Reserve (less RFE) 269,304 0 0 269,304 Balance Available 5,739,911 418,973 0 6,158,884 Total Non-Departmental 7,063,583 418,973 73,120 7,555,676 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 24,092,834 (1,855,923) 0 22,236,911 330 System Development Capital Projects Fund This supplemental request reduces the capital budget for transportation SDCs by $5,486 and for stormwater SDCs by $67,634 in order to transfer appropriation to the Special Assessment Capital Project Fund to provide funding for the Lone Oak widening project. City Council Agenda page 152 350 Special Assessment Capital Project Fund FY04 FY04 FY04 FY04 Adopted SB1 Action SB2 Action Revis d I.RESOURCES BEGINNING WORKING CAPITAL 1,859,153 93,462 0 1,952,615 CHANGE TO WORKING CAPITAL REVENUE Miscellaneous 132,264 (36,914) 0 95,350 Interfund Transfers 50,000 0 142,426 192,426 Fiscal Transactions 2,440,000 (332,146) (142,426) 1,965,428 Total Revenue 2,622,264 (369,060) 0 2,253,204 TOTAL RESOURCES 4,481,417 (275,598) 0 4,205,819 II. REQUIREMENTS Capital Projects Capital Projects 1,000,000 0 0 1,000,000 Cap. Carryover (Budget only) 1,216,351 (442,747) 0 773,604 Total Capital Projects 2,216,351 (442,747) 0 1,773,604 Non-Departmental Debt Service 600,000 0 0 600,000 Interfund Loans 0 704,000 0 704,000 Interfund Transfers 40,000 150,000 0 190,000 Balance Available 1,625,066 (686,851) 0 938,215 Total Non-Departmental 2,265,066 167,149 0 2,432,215 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 4,481,417 (275,598) 0 4,205,819 350 Special Assessment Capital Project Fund This supplemental request updates the funding plan for the Lone Oak Capital project by recognizing transfers from the General and Road Capital Projects Fund ($69,306) and the System Development Capital Project Fund ($73,120). This fund is not included in the appropriating resolution because no new appropriation authority is required. City Council Agenda page 153 530 Wastewater Utility Fund FY04 FY04 FY04 FY04 FY04 Adopted RFE* SB1 Action SB2 Action Revised I.RESOURCES BEGINNING WORKING CAPITAL 7,361,899 0 (2,326,935) 0 5,034,964 CHANGE TO WORKING CAPITAL REVENUE Charges for Services 25,650,728 0 688,166 0 26,338,894 Fines/Forfeitures 4,000 0 0 0 4,000 Miscellaneous 131,000 0 0 0 131,000 Interfund Transfers 0 0 85,081 0 85,081 Fiscal Transactions 0 0 0 133 200 133,200 Total Revenue 25,785,728 0 773,247 133,200 26,692,175 TOTAL RESOURCES 33,147,627 0 (1,553,688) 133,200 31,727,139 II. REQUIREMENTS Department Operating Public Works 14,304,156 396~726 309,963 0 15,010,845 Total Department Operating 14,304,156 396,726 309,963 0 15,010,845 Capital Projects Capital Projects 2,035,000 0 85,081 216,450 2,336,531 Cap. Carryover (Budget only) 3,476,780 0 (1,805,487) 0 1,671,293 Total Capital Projects 5,511,780 0 (1,720,406) 216,450 4,007,824 Non-Departmental Debt Service 330,020 0 0 833 330,853 Interfund Transfers 807,000 0 0 0 807,000 Intergovernmental Expend. 10,083,071 0 0 0 10,083,07' Contingency 100,000 0 0 0 100,000 Reserve (less RFE) 579,639 0 0 0 579,639 Reserve for Encumbrances 682,068 (682,068) 0 0 0 Balance Available 749,893 285,342 (143,245) (64,083) 807,907 Total Non-Departmental 13,331,691 (396,726) (143,245) (83,250) 12,708,470 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 33,147,627 0 (1,553,688) 133,200 31,727,139 530 Wastewater Utility Fund This supplemental request reconciles the Wastewater Utility Fund's portion of the purchase of land at the Public Works Roosevelt Yard maintenance facility. The City Council approved the financing plan to acquire the land on February 9, 2004. It recognizes an interfund loan from the Fleet Fund in the amount of $133,200, reduces balance available by $83,250, and increases the capital project budget by $216,450 for land acquisition. It also budgets a $833 interest payment and decreases balance available by the same amount. City Council Agenda page 154 *RFE=Reserve for Encumbrance: These changes were approved by Council Resolution 4779 on October 27, 2003. 539 Stormwater Utility Fund FY04 FY04 FY04 FY04 FY04 Adopted RFE* SB1 Action SB2 Action Revised I. RESOURCES BEGINNING WORKING CAPITAL 7,523,219 0 46,731 0 7,569,950 CHANGE TO WORKING CAPITAL REVENUE Licenses/Permits 33,200 0 0 0 33,200 Intergovernmental 100,000 0 1,530,500 263,750 a,c 1,894,250 Charges for Services 9,174,894 0 0 19,946 b 9,194,840 Miscellaneous 191,838 0 0 0 191,838 Interfund Transfers 0 0 160,322 0 160,322 Fiscal Transactions 0 0 0 219,200 d 219,200 Total Revenue 9,499,932 0 1,690,822 502,896 11,693,650 TOTAL RESOURCES 17,023,151 0 1,737,553 502,896 19,263,600 II. REQUIREMENTS Department Operating Public Works 9,107,886 104,060 0 13,438 c,e 9,225,384 Total Department Operating 9,107,886 104,060 0 13,438 9,225,384 Capital Projects Capital Projects 1,647,000 0 638,822 626,146 a,b,d 2,911,968 Cap. Carryover (Budget only) 4,678,880 0 256,848 0 4,935,728 Total Capital Projects 6,325,880 0 895,670 626,146 7,847,696 Non-Departmental Debt Service 0 0 0 1,370 d 1,370 Interfund Transfers 595,000 0 0 0 595,000 Reserve for Encumbrances 152,881 (152,881) 0 0 0 Balance Available 841,504 48,821 841,883 (138,058) c,d,e 1,594,150 Total Non-Departmental 1,589,385 (104,060) 841,883 (136,688) 2,190,520 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 17,023,151 0 1,737,553 502,896 19,263,600 539 Stormwater Utility Fund a This supplemental request recognizes grant revenue ($250,000) from the Oregon Park and Recreation Department. These grant monies will contribute to trails, benches, pedestrian bridges, viewing structures, interpretive signage, restroom enclosures, and parking on the Delta Ponds Recreation project. b This supplemental request recognizes revenue from the sale of native seed to other capital projects and operating programs ($19,946). PW Parks and Open Space grows and harvests native seed for their ongoing wetland seed procurement program. c This supplemental request recognizes the revenue and expenditure authority associated with an assistance agreement between the City of Eugene and the Bureau of Land Management. This agreement provides funding to the City to hire a seasonal employee to supervise fuels reduction work in the West Eugene Wetlands. $13,750 is recognized in revenue, Balance Available is increased by $4,812 and Public Works expenditure authority is increased d This supplemental request reconciles the Stormwater Utility Fund's portion of the purchase of land at the Public Works Roosevelt Yard maintenance facility. The City Council approved the financing plan to acquire the land on February 9, 2004. It recognizes an interfund loan from the Fleet Fund in the amount of $219,200, reduces balance available by $137,000, and increases the capital project budget by $356,200 for land acquisition. It also budgets a $1,370 interest payment and decreases balance available by the same amount. e This supplemental request increases Public Work's budget by $4,500 to enhance City supervision of the work for the wetland mitigation bank. City Council Aaenda Daae 155 *RFE=Reserve for Encumbrance: These changes were approved b?'Councir Re~olution 4779 on October 27, 2003. 592 Emergency Medical Service Fund FY04 FY04 FY04 FY04 FY04 Adopted RFE* SBI Action SB2 Action Revised I.RESOURCES BEGINNING WORKING CAPITAL 1,586,536 0 (344,340) 0 1,242,196 CHANGE TO WORKING CAPITAL REVENUE Charges for Services 5,843,149 0 0 2,350 5,845,499 Miscellaneous 56,800 0 0 1,440 58,240 Total Revenue 5,899,949 0 0 3,790 5,903,739 TOTAL RESOURCES 7,486,485 0 (344,340) 3,790 7,145,935 II. REQUIREMENTS Department Operating Fire/Emergency Medical Svcs 5,396,644 912 0 3,790 5,401,346 Police 118,344 0 0 0 118,344 Total Department Operating 5,514,988 912 0 3,790 5,519,690 Non-Departmental Interfund Transfers 603,155 0 0 0 603,155 Reserve for Encumbrances 912 (912) 0 0 0 Balance Available 1,367,430 0 (344,340) 0 1,023,090 Total Non-Departmental 1,971,497 (912) (344,340) 0 1,626,245 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 7,486,485 0 (344,340) 3,790 7,145,935 592 Emergency Medical Service Fund This supplemental budget request recognizes $2,350 in revenue from reimbursable overtime and $1,440 in miscellaneous revenue and increases Fire and Emergency Medical Services budget by the same amount ($3,790). City Council Agenda page 156 *RFE=Reserve for Encumbrance: These changes were approved by Council Resolution 4779 on October 27, 2003. 615 Facilities and Fleet Services Fund FY04 FY04 FY04 FY04 FY04 I. RESOURCES Adopted RFE* SB1 Action SB2 Action Revised BEGINNING WORKING CAPITAL 10,857,184 0 (499,748) 0 10,357,436 CHANGE TO WORKING CAPITAL REVENUE Rental 569,000 0 0 0 569,000 Charges for Services 12,294,750 0 0 1,786 12,296,536 Miscellaneous 550,550 0 122,500 5,152 678,202 Interfund Transfers 975,600 0 940,000 0 1,915,600 Fiscal Transactions 764,034 0 530,000 0 1,294,034 Total Revenue 15,153,934 0 1,592,500 6,938 16,753,372 TOTAL RESOURCES 26,011,118 0 1,092,752 6,938 27,110,808 II. REQUIREMENTS Department Operating Central Services 5,892,598 41,689 50,000 0 5,984,287 Planning and Development 219,981 0 0 0 219,981 Public Works 7,589~269 768~591 0 0 8,357,860 Total Department Operating 13,701,848 810,280 50,000 0 14,562,128 Capital Projects Capital Projects 140,000 0 0 285,838 425,838 Cap. Carryover (Budget only) 354,778 0 11,165 0 365,943 Total Capital Projects 494,778 0 11,165 285,838 791,781 Non-Departmental Debt Service 194,463 0 0 0 194,463 Interfund Loans 573,026 0 0 824,100 1,397,126 Interfund Transfers 1,662,000 0 0 0 1,662,000 Reserve (less RFE) 8,107,282 0 1,338,137 (1,103,000) 8,342,419 Reserve for Encumbrances 1,238,380 (1,238,380) 0 0 0 Balance Available 39,341 428,100 (306,550) 0 160.891 Total Non-Departmental 11,814,492 (810,280) 1,031,587 (278,900) 11,756,899 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 26,011,118 0 1,092,752 6,938 27,110,808 615 Facilities and Fleet Services Fund This supplemental request establishes the Fleet Fund's portion of the purchase of land at the Public Works Roosevelt Yard maintenance facility. The City Council approved the financing plan to acquire the land on February 9, 2004. It creates a 3-year interfund loan of $824,100 to three different funds, the General and Road Capital Projects Fund ($471,700), Wastewater Fund ($133,200), and Storrnwater Fund ($219,200). Fleet Fund reserve is decreased by the same amount. It also increases capital projects by $285,838 for the Fleet Fund's share of the land acquisition and decreases reserve by the same amount. Revenue is increased by $6,938 for receipt of interest payments in FY04 and reserve is increased by the same amount. City Council Agenda page 157 *RFE=Reserve for Encumbrance: These changes were approved by Council Resolution 4779 on October 27, 2003. 620 Risk Management Fund FY04 FY04 FY04 FY04 Ad pt d SB1 Acti n SB2 Action R vis d I.RESOURCES BEGINNING WORKING CAPITAL 1,395,183 392,347 0 1,787,530 CHANGE TO WORKING CAPITAL REVENUE Charges for Services 21,787,188 0 0 21,787,188 Miscellaneous 184,000 0 800,000 984,000 Interfund Transfers 115,000 1,000,000 0 1,115,000 Fiscal Transactions 573,026 0 0 573,026 Total Revenue 22,659,214 1,000,000 800,000 24,459,214 TOTAL RESOURCES 24,054,397 1,392,347 800,000 26,246,744 II. REQUIREMENTS Department Operating Central Services 17,116,526 0 800,000 17,916,526 Total Department Operating 17,116,526 0 800,000 17,916,526 Non-Departmental Debt Service 3,830,550 0 0 3,830,550 Interfund Loans 764,035 0 0 764,035 Interfund Transfers 153,000 0 0 153,000 Reserve (less RFE) 1,175,810 1,050,788 0 2,226,598 Balance Available 1,014,476 341,559 0 1,356,035 Total Non-Departmental 6,937,871 1,392,347 0 8,330,218 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS. 24,054,397 1,392,347 800,000 26,246,744 620 Risk Management Fund This supplemental request increases appropriation to cover increased claims costs to the City's self-insured health plan. The revenue offset reflects reimbursements from the stop loss carrier over the City's stop loss point ($100,000 per claim). City Council Agenda page 158 ATTACHMENT B FY04 GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY TRACKING SUMMARY General General General Contingency Contingency Contingency Resources Beginning Appropriation $ 340,000 $ 340,000 Starting Balances $ 340,000 $ 340,000 Expenditures Supplemental Bud.qet #1 09/24/03 1. Hospital Siting Contract (Resolution #4778) 5,000 5,000 12/01/03 2. Cattery 15,078 15,078 SB~I Subtotal 20,078 20,078 Balance as of SB#1 $ 319,922 Supplemental Budget #2 - 03/08/04 1. Mayor's Ad Hoc Econc Dvlp Citizen Task Force 50,000 50,000 SB#2 Subtotal 50,000 50,000 Totals/Balance as of SB#2 $ 269,922 Supplemental Budget #3 1. SB#3 Subtotal Totals/Balance as of SB#3 $ $ $ 269,922 3/2/2004 j:\FY03 GF Contingency.xls City Council Agenda page 159 ATTACHMENT C Resolution Number A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET; MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE CITY OF EUGENE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2003, AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2004. The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that Adopting the Supplemental Budget and Making Appropriations is necessary under ORS 294.480. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE A Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows: Section 1. That the Supplemental Budget for the City of Eugene, Oregon, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2003, and ending June 30, 2004, as set forth in attached Exhibit "A" is hereby adopted. Section 2. The Supplemental amounts for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2003, and ending June 30, 2004, and for the purposes shown in attached Exhibit "A" are hereby appropriated. Section 3. That this Supplemental Budget is prepared in accordance with ORS 294.480(1)(a), which authorizes the formulation of a supplemental budget resulting from "An occurrence or condition which had not been ascertained at the time of the preparation of a budget for the current year or current budget period which requires a change in financial planning." This Supplemental Budget was published in accordance with ORS 294.480(4). Section 4. This resolution complies with ORS 294.480(5), and does not authorize an increase in the levy of property taxes above the amount published in the Annual Budget publication. The foregoing resolution adopted this 8th day of March, 2004. City Recorder City Council Agenda page 161 EXHIBIT "A" In dollars GENERAL FUND Departmental Operating Central Services 500 000 Fire and Emergency Medical Services 294 001 Library, Recreation and Cultural Services 18 511 Planning and Development 50 000 Police Department 14 000 Total Departmental Operating 876 512 Non-Departmental Contingency (50,000) Interfund Transfer 85,000 Reserves (478,171) Total Non-Departmental (443,171) TOTAL GENERAL FUND 433,341 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND Departmental Operating Planning and Development 800,000 Total Departmental Operating 800,000 Capital Projects Capital Projects 100,000 Total Capital Projects 100,000 Non-Departmental Miscellaneous Fiscal Transactions (206,438) Total Non-Departmental (206,438) TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND 693,562 City Council Agenda page 163 LIBRARY~ PARKS & RECREATION SPECIAL REVENUE FUND Departmental Operating Library, Recreation and Cultural Services 1,000,000 Total Departmental Operating 1,000,000 Capital Projects Capital Projects 45,424 Total Capital Projects 45,424 Non-Departmental Reserves (996,210) Balance Available (19,264) Total Non-Departmental (1,015,474) TOTAL LIBRARY, PARKS & REC. SPECIAL REVENUE FUND 29,950 GENERAL AND ROAD CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Capital Projects Capital Projects 839,824 Total Capital Projects 839,824 Non-Departmental Debt Service 2,949 Interfund Transfer 69,306 Balance Available (330,718) Total Non-Departmental (258,463) TOTAL GENERAL AND ROAD CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 581,361 SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Capital Projects Capital Projects (73,120) Total Capital Projects (73,120) Non-Departmental Interfund Transfer 73,120 Total Non-Departmental 73,120 TOTAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CAP. PROJECTS FUND 0 City Council Agenda page 164 WASTEWATER UTILITY FUND Capital Projects Capital Projects 216,450 Total Capital Projects 216,450 Non-Departmental Debt Service 833 Balance Available (84,083) Total Non-Departmental (83,250) TOTAL WASTEWATER UTILITY FUND 133,200 STORMWATER UTILITY FUND Departmental Operating Public Works 13,438 Total Departmental Operating 13,438 Capital Projects Capital Projects 626,146 Total Capital Projects 626,146 Non-Departmental Debt Service 1,370 Balance Available (138,058) Total Non-Departmental (136,688) TOTAL STORMWATER UTILITY FUND 502,896 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FUND Departmental Operating Fire and Emergency Medical Services 3,790 Total Departmental Operating 3,790 TOTAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FUND 3,790 City Council Agenda page 165 FACILITIES AND FLEET SERVICES FUND Capital Projects Capital Projects 285,838 Total Capital Projects 285,838 Non-Departmental Interfund Loans 824,100 Reserves (1,103,000) Total Non-Departmental (278,900) TOTAL FACILITIES AND FLEET SERVICES FUND 6,938 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND Departmental Operating Central Services 800,000 Total Departmental Operating 800,000 TOTAL RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 800,000 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS - ALL FUNDS 3,185,038 City Council Agenda page 166 URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Public Hearing and Action: Resolution 1029 Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2003, and ending June 30, 2004 Meeting Date: March 8, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 4 Department: Central Services Staff Contact: Kitty Murdoch, Nikki Parness www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5021 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY This is the second Supplemental Budget for FY04. Oregon Local Budget Law (ORS 294.480) allows for supplemental budgets for "an occurrence.., which had not been ascertained at the time of the preparation of a budget for the current year..." Supplemental Budget #2 increases expenditure authority by $350,000 in FY04 Adopted Urban Renewal Agency Budget. A brief description of each proposed transaction is provided in Attachment A. This supplemental budget does not authorize any increased property tax levy. BACKGROUND Urban Renewal Board Action History Not applicable. Policy Issues Not applicable. Other Background Information For this Supplemental Budget, the proposed changes fall into the following categories: Significant Changes This request appropriates $750,000 in Urban Renewal Agency funds including $350,000 to continue the design of the transportation improvements through the end of the fiscal year and $400,000 for the construction of Ferry Street between 6th Avenue and 8th Avenue. The proposed change was included in a separate memo sent to the council on February 27, 2004. Timing In some cases, expenditure authority is needed immediately to carry out City Council direction or to meet legal or program requirements. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040308\S0403084.doc OPTIONS Not applicable. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution adopting the Supplemental Budget. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve Resolution 1029 adopting a Supplemental Budget; making appropriations for the Urban Renewal Agency of Eugene for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2003, and ending June 30, 2004. ATTACHMENTS A. Transaction Summary B. Resolution FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Kitty Murdoch, Nikki Parness Telephone: 682-5021 Staff E-Mail: kitty.m.murdoch~ci.eugene.or.us nikki, m. parnes s~ci. eugene, or. us L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040308\S0403084.doc ATTACHMENT A Transaction Summary 821 Riverfront General Fund FY04 FY04 FY04 FY04 Adopted SB1 Action SB2 Action Revised I.RESOURCES BEGINNING WORKING CAPITAL 452,458 (351,509) 0 100,949 CHANGE TO WORKING CAPITAL REVENUE Taxes 450,000 0 0 450,000 Rental 23,986 0 0 23,986 Miscellaneous 6,000 0 0 6,000 Total Revenue 479,986 0 0 479,986 TOTAL RESOURCES 932,~.~. (351,509) 0 580,935 II. REQUIREMENTS Department Operating Planning and Development 67,928 75,000 0 142,928 Total Department Operating 67,928 75,000 0 142,928 Non-Departmental Interfund Transfers 0 0 350,000 350,000 Balance Available 864,516 (426,509) (350,000) 88,007 Total Non-Departmental 864,516 (426,509) 0 438,007 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 932,444 (351,509) 0 580,935 821 Riverfront General Fund This supplemental request transfers $350,000 in Riverfront tax increment funds to Riverfront Capital Projects Fund for the courthouse area transportation project, including engineering and design fees. City Council Agenda page 169 823 Riverfront Capital Projects Fund FY04 FY04 FY04 FY04 Adopted SBI Action SB2 Action Revised I.RESOURCES BEGINNING WORKING CAPITAL 1,131,068 (1,131,693) 0 (625) CHANGE TO WORKING CAPITAL REVENUE Miscellaneous 39,000 3,845,000 0 3,884,000 Interfund Transfers 0 0 350,000 350,000 Total Revenue 39,000 3,845,000 350,000 4,234,000 TOTAL RESOURCES 1,170,068 2,713,307 350,000 4,233,375 II. REQUIREMENTS Capital Projects Capital Projects 0 146,000 750,000 896,000 Cap. Carryover (Budget only) 0 514,473 0 514,473 Total Capital Projects 0 660,473 750,000 1,410,473 Non-Departmental Debt Service 90,000 562,500 0 652,500 Balance Available 1,080,068 1,490,334 (400,000) 2,170,402 Total Non-Departmental 1,170,068 2,052,834 (400,000) 2,822,902 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 1,170,068 2,713,307 350,000 4,233,375 823 Riverfront Capital Projects Fund This supplemental request recognizes a transfer of $350,000 in Riverfront tax increment funds from the Riverfront General Fund for the courthouse area transportation project, including engineering and design fees. This supplemental request reduces Balance Available by $400,000 and increases capital projects by the same amount for construction of Ferry Street from 6th to 8th Avenue. City Council Agenda page 170 ATTACHMENT B Resolution Number A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET; MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY OF THE CITY OF EUGENE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2003, AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2004. The Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene finds that adopting the Supplemental Budget and making appropriations is necessary under ORS 294.480. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY OF THE CITY OF EUGENE as follows: Section 1. That the Supplemental Budget for the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene, Oregon, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2003, and ending June 30, 2004, as set forth in attached Exhibit "A" is hereby adopted. Section 2. The supplemental amounts for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2003, and ending June 30, 2004, and for the purposes shown in attached Exhibit "A" are hereby appropriated. Section 3. That this Supplemental Budget is prepared in accordance with ORS 294.480(1)(a), which authorizes the formulation of a supplemental budget resulting fi.om "An occurrence or condition which had not been ascertained at the time of the preparation of a budget for the current year or current budget period which requires a change in financial planning." This Supplemental Budget was published in accordance with ORS 294.480(4). Section 4. This resolution complies with ORS 294.480(5), and does not authorize an increase in the levy of property taxes above the amount published in the Annual Budget publication. The foregoing resolution adopted this 8th day of March, 2004. Director City Council Agenda page 171 EXHIBIT "A" In dollars URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY RIVERFRONT FUND Non-Departmental Interfund Transfer 350,000 Balance Available (350,000) Total Non-Departmental 0 TOTAL URA RIVERFRONT FUND 0 URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY RIVERFRONT CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Capital Projects Capital Projects 750,000 Total Capital Projects 750,000 Non-Departmental Balance Available (400,000) Total Non-Departmental (400,000) TOTAL URA RIVERFRONT CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 350,000 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS -ALL FUNDS 350,000 City Council Agenda page 172 EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Action: Approval, Of Findings, And Recommendation From The Hearings Official and Adoption of an Ordinance Levying Assessments for Paving, Curbs, Gutters, Sidewalk, 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 (Contract #2004-08) (Job #4058) Meeting Date: March 8, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 5 Department: Public Works Staff Contact: Paul Klope www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5246 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY This item is to approve the Hearings Official's Findings and Recommendations of March 1, 2004, and adopt an ordinance levying assessments for paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalk, 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. Note: This item has an immediate effective date. An immediate effective date is requested with this ordinance since the assessment calculations are based on the council action of March 8, 2004. An immediate effective date requires a 2/3 majority or 6 affirmative votes from the council to enact. Ordinances without an immediate effective date do not take effect for 30 days. BACKGROUND Council Action History The project was initiated by two petitions received by the City, and the City Engineer initiated the preparation of plans and specifications, pursuant to Section 7.160(8) of the Eugene Code, 1971. The bids were opened on July 1, 2003, with Wildish Construction Co. as the low bidder. The City Council formed the Local Improvement District (LID) on July 28, 2003. Policy Issues Not applicable. The assessment costs will be distributed as outlined in the council-adopted Hearing Official's Findings and Recommendation and resolution forming the LID. Council Goals "Safe Community - A safe community where people feel secure and respected." Specifically, improvements on Lone Oak Drive advances the goal "to improve street safety" by providing sidewalks, a pedestrian refuge median island, parking bays, and street lights with this project. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040308\S0403085.doc Financial and/or Resource Considerations Below are the final unit assessable costs: Paving (per from foot) $ 65.96 Sidewalk (per square foot) $ 4.25 Storm Drain (per lot) (lots3800 & 104) $ 7,362.60 Parking Bays (per square foot) $ 4.75 Illumination (per lot) (lots 3800 & 104) $ 6,518.42 Street Trees (per lot) (lots 3800 & 104) $ 1,740.33 Total City Cost $106,415.25 Total Project Cost $ 213,597.60 The City will pick up the cost for non-assessable curb and gutter, sidewalks, street lights, and storm drainage system as identified by City Code, Chapter 7. The non-assessable City share for this project will be funded primarily from Transportation system development charge (SDC) funds, Road Capital Projects Fund and Stormwater SDC funds. Transportation SDC funds will be used to pay for the cost of non-assessable street improvements at the intersection of Lone Oak and Division Avenue, because Division is a collector street. Road Capital Projects Fund is used to pay the City's share of local street improvements for local street LIDs which are ineligible for Transportation SDC funding. System development changes are paid by new development to finance the non-assessable share of this type of transportation and storm drain system improvement with regional benefit. Other Background Information Lone Oak Drive was an improved street with curbs and gutters, sidewalks and paving on the south side only from Division Avenue east to Lone Oak Way. The improvements to Lone Oak Drive between Division Avenue and Lone Oak Way were to meet the current and future pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular needs in this developing area of the community. Notices of the assessment and hearing were sent out ten days prior to the assessment hearing. A hearing was scheduled for February 18, 2004; with none of the property owners wanting to attend, the hearing was cancelled. Timing All the necessary steps have been completed as prescribed by the Eugene Code for levying assessments. An immediate effective date is requested with this ordinance since the assessment calculations are based on the Council action of March 8, 2004. An immediate effective date requires a 2/3 majority or 6 affirmative votes from the Council to enact. Ordinances without an immediate effective date do not take effect for 30 days. Without an immediate effective date, an additional 30 days of interest will accrue. OPTIONS Special assessment provisions adopted as part of an LID resolution cannot be modified during the final assessment process if they result in increased costs to the property owners. The final assessment hearing is to review the calculations to assure conformance with the requirements stated in the LID resolution and the municipal code. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040308\S0403085.doc Per Section 7.187, the City Council can take the following actions: 1. Adoption of the ordinance levying assessments. 2. If, after reviewing the proposed assessment, a determination is made that the assessment should be modified, staff would be directed to publish a new notice and a public hearing must be conducted. New findings would then be prepared for City Council adoption. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Findings and Recommendation of the Hearings Official and adoption of the ordinance levying assessments. SUGGESTED MOTION The council is asked to approve two motions: 1. Move to approve the Findings and Recommendations of the Hearings Official of March 1, 2004. 2. Move to adopt an ordinance levying assessments for paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalk, 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. ATTACHMENTS A. Ordinance including Hearings Official's Findings and Recommendations FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Paul Klope Telephone: 682-5246 Staff E-Mail: paul.w.klope~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040308\S0403085.doc ATTACHMENT A ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR PAVING, CONSTRUCTING CURBS, 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; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE. (CONTRACT 2004-08) (JOB #4058) The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: On the 15th day of July, 2002, based on the findings issued by the City Engineer, pursuant to Section 7.160(8) of the Eugene Code, 1971, the City Engineer initiated the proposed local improvements consisting of paving, constructing curbs, 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. After due notice and a public heating before the hearing official on July 9, 2003, the City Council formed the Local Improvement District and authorized construction of the local improve- ment on the 12th day of August 2002. The actual cost of the local improvement is ascertained to be $213,597.60, and the amounts to be assessed to, and borne by, the specially benefitted property, and to be borne by the City or others, have been determined in accordance with applicable provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971 ("E.C.") and as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The City Council has established the method of calculating local improvement assessments in E.C. 7.170 and 7.175. A public hearing on the ordinance, as required by Section 28(2) of the Eugene Charter of 2002, was scheduled before the heating official as authorized by Section 2.007(4) of the Eugene Ordinance- 1 Q:kPROJECTSkPROJ-8~40SS~SSESS\ORDINANCE.wpd City Council Agenda page 177 Code, 1971, on February 18, 2004. A notice containing the information required by E.C. 7.185 was posted on a public bulletin board at City Hall and given by certified mail to the owners of the parcels of real property subject to the assessment more than ten days prior to the scheduled public heating before the hearing official. At the time and place specified therein, the hearings official considered the assessment report of the City Engineer and Finance Officer and the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing. At least ten working days prior to the Council meeting, notice of the Council's consideration of this Ordinance was published in the Register Guard, and the Ordinance was posted on the City's web site on the same date, as required by Section 28(1) of the Eugene Charter of 2002. The Council has reviewed and considered the assessment report of the City Engineer and Finance Officer and the hearings official's findings and summary, and based thereon, THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The hearings official's summary is hereby made a part of the Council's record in these proceedings, and the hearings official's findings, including those regarding compliance with E.C. 7.160 to 7.190, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted. Section 2. The actual assessable cost of the local improvement comprised of paving, constructing curbs, 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 is $107,182.35 which is hereby assessed against the parcels of property hereinafter described in the amounts set opposite, respectively. Section 3. The City Council does hereby determine and assess each lot and part of lot within Ordinance - 2 Q:~ROJECTS'xPROJ-8XA058'~SSES S\ORDINANCE.wpd City Council Agenda page 178 the described local improvement district as set forth on the assessment roll attached as Exhibit C hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Section 4. The City Council does hereby determine that each parcel of land or lot herein above described is specially benefitted to the extent of the assessment set forth. The Finance Officer shall give notice of the assessments to the owners of the assessed parcels advising them the assessment may be paid in full, without interest, within ten days of the effective date of this ordinance. Assessments that remain unpaid after the ten day period are declared to be liens upon the respective lots, parts of lots or parcels of land against which said several amounts are assessed, and may be paid, with interest on the unpaid principal amount commencing ten days after the effective date of this ordinance: 4.1 In up to twenty semi-annual installments, including principal and interest at the rate set by the City Manager as provided in E.C. 2.022 through 2.024. 4.2 If the property owner so elects, in 120 monthly installments, including principal and interest at the rate set by the City Manager as provided in E.C. 2.022 through 2.024 plus a service charge determined by the City Manager as provided in E.C. 2.020. Section 5. The City Recorder is directed to enter in the docket of City Liens a statement in connection with each unpaid assessment containing the following: 5.1 A description of each lot, part of lot or acreage specially benefitted by the local improvement; 5.2 The name of the owner or reputed owner thereof, or that the name of the owner is unknown; and 5.3 The sum assessed upon said property, the amount and date from which interest accrues, Ordinance - 3 Q 5PROJECTSkPROJ-8\4058kAS SESS\ORDINANC E.wpd City Council Agenda page 179 and the date of entering the same in the docket of City Liens. Section 6. Upon enactment of this ordinance, the City Finance Officer shall send notice of the assessments by first class mail to the owners of the assessed parcels containing the information required by E.C. 7.190 and enclose therewith an application for paying the assessment in installments according to the terms set forth in Section 4 of this ordinance. Section 7. Any assessment remaining unpaid and for which no application for installment payments has been received may be foreclosed as provided by law. The proceeds from the payment or foreclosure of assessments levied by this ordinance shall be deposited to the city funds which advanced the cost of construction, engineering and related expenses or which are used to retire any indebtedness incurred by the City for this improvement. Section 8. An immediate effective date of this Ordinance is necessary to allow the City to begin immediate collection of the assessments that will be used to pay the obligations the City has incurred for this project. Enabling the City to begin collecting assessments will avoid increased interest costs and conserve limited City resources. Therefore, this Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor, retention by the Mayor for more than ten days, or readoption over a Mayoral veto by two-thirds of all members of the City Council. Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this __ day of ,2004. day of ,2004. City Recorder Mayor Ordinance - 4 Q:kPROJECTS\PROJ-8X4058kASSESS\ORDINANC E.wpd City Council Agenda page 180 Exhibit A ASSESSMENT DISTRIBUTION PAVING, CURBS, 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. (CONTRACT #2004-08) (JOB ~4058) ASSESSABLE: 3 PROPERTIES AT THIS TIME $107,182.35 0 PROPERTIES ARE ONHOLD $ 0.00 TOTAL ASSESSMENT FOR 3 PROPERTIES $107,182.35 CITY SHARE: CITY PAVING $ 64,513.28 CITY STORM $ 41,901.97 TOTAL CITY SHARE: $106,415.25 TOTAL COST OF PROJECT: $213,597.60 City Council Agenda page 181 Exhibit B FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUBJECT: PROPOSED FINAL ASSESSMENT FOR PAVING, 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' EAST OF LONE OAK WAY (JOB g4058) (CONTRACT 2004-08) BACKGROUND The area around Division Avenue is a mix of developed and developing properties. A major commercial center (Santa Clara Square) is already developed, and behind this center there is a smaller, developing residentially focused area. Lone Oak Drive is a transition area for this mix. Lone Oak Drive connects with Division Avenue at the edge of Santa Clara Square, just across Division Avenue from the Fred Meyers store. Prior to this improvement project, Lone Oak Drive was only developed as what is commonly known as a "half street." In the case of Lone Oak Drive, the south half of the Drive from Division Avenue to the cross street (Lone Oak Way) was developed but the north half of the street was undeveloped. This created difficulties for travelers, especially pedestrians, such as those from the Lone Oak Retirement Center, because these residents must travel along the street to get to Division Avenue and the shopping located there. The project was initiated after property owner petitions for the improvements. After receiving the petitions, the City Engineer initiated the project, as provided in Eugene Code Section 7.160(8). Bids were solicited and the property owners were notified concerning the proposed Local Improvement District (LID) and their opportunity to be heard on the matter. The City Council formed the Local Improvement District on July 28, 2003. Work has been completed and final costs have been calculated. The Eugene Code calls for action by the City Engineer, that the affected property owners be provided an opportunity for a hearing, and that after consideration of relevant information, the Eugene City Council determine whether the assessments associated with the LID should be levied against the benefiting properties. PROJECT The improvements bring Lone Oak Drive to urban standards for a local street from Division Avenue east to a point 250 feet past Lone Oak Way. The project constructed the remaining portion of the "half street" - the northern ten feet of width of Lone Oak Drive from Division Avenue to Lone Oak Way. Lone Oak Drive is now 30 feet wide from Division Avenue to Lone Oak Way, and 20 feet wide for the next 250 feet east. Street lights and street trees were installed all along the improved street, and sidewalks were constructed along developed properties. The project also included some special or notable design elements to increase the sustainability PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR PAVING, CURBS AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS ON LONE OAK DRIVE Page 1 City Council Agenda page 183 characteristics of the project. Where parking bays were installed, the pavement used in the parking bays was "pervious" pavement, which allows drainage water to pass through the pavement. This reduces stormwater runoff. The project also included the construction of stormwater detention facilities, which also controls and reduces the volume of runoff. ASSESSMENTS Chapter 7 of the Eugene Code provides that the cost of public improvement projects such as the improvements to Lone Oak Drive should be spread among the benefiting property owners, with the City of Eugene absorbing a share of the costs. The City's share of costs come from the portions of the street improvements that do not abut benefiting properties, such as intersections, as well as from the excess street capacity that may need to be installed, and for costs that the city has decided are necessary, but which do not provide as large and direct a benefit as other costs which are assessed to property owners. In the case of Lone Oak Drive, the total project costs have been determined to be $213,597.60. The City share of the project cost, pursuant to the directions in Eugene Code Chapter 7, is $106,415.25. The property owner assessable costs are divided among the properties either on a per lot basis, or on a per square foot basis, depending on the directions to Chapter 7 of the Eugene Code. The City Engineer has calculated that the assessable costs should be distributed as follows: Paving (per front foot) $ 65.96 Sidewalk (per square foot) $ 4.25 Storm Drain (per lot)(lots3800 & 104) $ 7,362.60 Parking Bays (per square foot) $ 4.75 Illumination (per lot) (lots 3800 & 104) $ 6,518.42 Street Trees (per lot) (lots 3800 & 104) $ 1,740.33 Total City Cost $ 106,415.25 Total Project Cost $ 213,597.60 Estimated Assessment At the time the LID was formed, the City Engineer developed a prediction concerning the cost of the LID. Based on the bid received the estimate was: Paving (per front foot) $ 80.89 per Front Foot Parking Bays $ 4.86 per Square Foot Sidewalk and driveways $ 4.24 per Square Foot Street Lights $ 6,673 per lot Street Trees $1,974 per lot PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR PAVING, CURBS AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS ON LONE OAK DRIVE Page 2 City Council Agenda page 184 Storm Drain $ 7,430 per lot Estimated total Project Cost $ 213,409.06 Estimated City share $ 94,841.56 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT This project was started because of property owner petitions. After notice of the proposed assessment and proposed public hearing was sent, the City Engineer's office received several comments concerning the proposed assessment. Those comments are summarized in the City Engineer's report. No persons requested an opportunity to have a public hearing on the proposed assessments. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Notice of the public hearing was provided and all the property owners were given an oppommity to participate in the hearings. Appropriate notice was given of the public heating and the availability of the proposed ordinance for LID assessment, as required by the Eugene Charter and Code. Letters informing property owners of the heating and notification to property owners of the intent of the City to characterize the assessment as an assessment, not a tax, as required by ORS 305.583(5), were mailed to the property owners. The overall cost of the project was almost exactly what was estimated, and the assessable costs were reduced from what was estimated in 2003. The Hearings Officer finds that the project is one for which the assessments are for local improvements as set forth in ORS 310.410 because 1. The assessments do not exceed actual costs; 2. The assessments are imposed for a capital construction project that provides a specific benefit for a specific property or rectifies a problem caused by a specific property 3. The assessments are imposed in a single assessment upon completion of the project; and 4. The assessments allow the property owners to elect to pay the assessment with interest over at least ten (10) years. The Hearings Official also finds that the proposed final assessment, calculated and recommended by the City Engineer is reasonable and consistent with the Eugene Code. The Hearings Official recommends that the Council act in accord with the City Engineer's recommendations, adopting PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR PAVING, CURBS AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS ON LONE OAK DRIVE Page 3 City Council Agenda page 185 the ordinance prepared for the public hearing, levying the assessmem as set forth by the City Engineer. RespecL.f3fl~ly s3tbmitted, Milo Mechm He~ngs Official Dated: March 1, 2004 PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR PAVING, CURBS AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS ON LONE OAK DRIVE Page 4 City Council Agenda page 186 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 17, 2004 FROM: Mark Schoening, City Enginee, r TO: Hearings Official SUBJECT: PROPOSED FINAL ASSESSMENT FOR PAVING, CURBS, GUTTERS, SIDEWALK, 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) (CONTRACT 2004-08) BACKGROUND Lone Oak Drive was an improved street with curbs and gutters, sidewalks and paving on the South side only of Lone Oak Drive from Division Avenue east to Lone Oak Way. The improvements to Lone Oak Drive between Division Avenue and Lone Oak Way were to meet the current and future pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular needs in this developing area of the community. The project was initiated by two petitions received by the City, in Oc}ober 1999 for Lone Oak Way and in July 2002 for Lone Oak Drive. The City Engineer initiated the preparation of plans and specifications, pursuant to Section 7.160(8) of the Eugene Code, 1971. Bids were opened on July 1, 2003, with Wildish Construction Co. as the apparent low bidder. The City Council formed the Local Improvement District (LID) on July 28, 2003. The project has been completed, and final assessment costs have been calculated. The property owners were notified of the pending assessment hearing ten (10) days prior to the hearing as required by Municipal Code. The intent of the final assessment hearing that is scheduled for February 18, 2004, is to review the final project cost, consider comments on the proposed assessments, and to provide evidence to be included in the ordinance levying the assessments by the City Council. CORRESPONDENCE Since the mailing of the Notice of Proposed Assessment, city staffhas received two phone calls and has met with one property owner. Information regarding the assessment calculations was provided to Mark Cogswell (for Lone Oak Development LLC). Mr. Cogswell stated that he thought the assessment was too high. Staff discussed with Wally Gustler (attorney for Harder Development III LLC) the hearing process and described the estimated amount of the assessment. Mike Deines (Harder Development III LLC) notified staff that he was not interested in being present at the hearing. At Mr. Deines' request, staff faxed an additional copy of the proposed assessment letter to him. Staff received no written correspondence expressing concerns or questions regarding the cost of the improvements. City Council Agenda page 187 Hearing Memo - Lone Oak Drive February 17, 2004 Page 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The street improvements include constructing the north ten feet of Lone Oak Drive from Division to Lone Oak Way, and full street improvements east of Lone Oak Way for 250 feet. Lone Oak Drive is now 30 feet wide from Division Avenue to Lone Oak Way, and 20-foot wide east of Lone Oak Way. Street lights, and street trees were included as part of the improvements. Sidewalks were constructed along all developed properties. Parking bays were constructed to accommodate needs of adjacent owners. Storm water quality BMP's were constructed including the use of pervious pavement in the parking bays. Storm water detention was also integrated into the design. These measures provided sustainable design elements into the project scope. ASSESSMENT Costs are distributed per City Code 7.175, and as outlined in the Council adopted Hearings Official findings and recommendations, and the resolution forming the LID. The non-assessable City share for this project will be funded primarily from Road Fund and storm water SDCs. Transportation SDC funds will be used to pay for the cost ofnonassessable street improvements at the intersection of Lone Oak and Division Avenue, because Division is a collector street. Road Fund is used to pay the City's share of local street improvements for local street LID's which are ineligible for Transportation SDC funding. Systems development funds are paid by new development to finance the non-assessable share of this type of storm drain system improvement Assessment financing, a 10-year payment plan through the City, is available to all property owners within the improvement district as identified by City Code, Chapter 7. None of the property owners qualify for the low-to moderate income subsidy program. Below are the final unit assessable costs: Paving (per front foot) $ 65.96 Sidewalk (per square foot) $ 4.25 Storm Drain (per lot)(lots3800 & 104) $ 7,362.60 Parking Bays (per square foot) $ 4.75 Illumination (per lot) (lots 3800 & 104) $ 6,518.42 Street Trees (per lot) (lots 3800 & 104) $ 1,740.33 Total City Cost $ 106,415.25 Total Project Cost $ 213,597.60 The City will pick up the cost for non-assessable curb and gutter, sidewalks, street lights, and storm drainage system as identified by City Code, Chapter 7. Costs listed below are the estimated assessment costs calculated at the time of the formation of the LID. A contingency was included in the estimate. Paving (per front foot) $ 80.89 Sidewalks (per square foot) $ 4.24 City Council Agenda page 188 Hearing Memo - Lone Oak Drive February 17, 2004 Page 3 Storm Drain (per lot) (lots 3800 & 104) $ 7,430.49 Parking Bays (,per square foot) $ 4.86 Illumination (per lot) $ 6,673.00 Street Trees (per lot) (lots 3800 & 104) $ 1,974.57 Total Assessable Cost $ 74,455.63 Total City Cost $ 94,841.56 Direct Charges $ 44,111.87 Total Project Cost $213,409.06 RECOMMENDATION The final total assessable costs are lower than quoted at the time of the formation of the LID. Costs are distributed in accordance with Eugene Code. Staff recommends approval of the assessments as calculated and that the Council levy the final assessments. City Council Agenda page 189 REPORT ID: RP' P CITY Oi JGENE RUN DATE: 3/2/2004 RUN TIME: 8:47:40 AM SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM PROCESS PARAMETERS AND ERROR REPORT YOU REQUESTED THE FOLLOWING JOB PARAMETERS FOR ASSESSMENT ROLL FROM SPA (FINAL) MASTER PROJECT NUMBER ...... 2004-00008 RECORDS RETU~ED ........... 3 ERROR MESSAGES ** NO ERRORS TO REPORT ** MASTER PROJECT #: 2004-00008 CONTRACT #1 2004 00008 JOB #: 93004058 SSQ #: 20 PAVING, CURBS, GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYTEM, AND ILLUMINIATION ON LONE OAK PROJECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION DRIVE FROM DIVISION AVENUE TO 250 FEET EAST OF LONE OAK WAY  ACCOONT STATUS 0WN~R 33 01000 000 PENDING DEPAUL R E SERVICES INC ~ PO BOX 24608 --' ~I./GENE OR 97402 ~O PROP~RT~D~SCRIPT~0N~ 928-78527~9 ~ SIDEWALK/DRIVE APRON $7,248.90 ~ STREET IMPROVEMENTS $18,008.22 ~ STREET LIGHTS $6,518.42 MASTER PROJECT #: 2004-00008 CONTRACT #: 2004 00008 JOB #~ 93004058 SEQ #: 1'0 PAVING, CURBS, GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYTEM, AND ILLUMINIATION ON LONE OAK PROJECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION DRIVE FROM DIVISION AVENUE TO 250 FEET EAST OF LONE OAK WAY TAXLOT ACCOONT 8TAT~S OWt~R 17041234 03800 000 PENDING HARDER DEVELOPMENT PO BOX 3006 SALEM OR 97302 pROP~RTYD~SCRIPTZON~ 25T5-~90668~ n~x~$ ~u~om~ SIDEWALK/DRIVE APRON $5,954.55 ST~U~ET ~ReSS-OTNER S~,~.00 STO~ ~GE-OTHER $7,362.60 ST~ET ~IGHTS $6,518'.42 STREET T~ES $1,740.33 TOTAh ACCO~ I~ROVE~ $38~694.06 MASTER PROJECT #: 2004-00008 CONTRACT #: 2004 00008 JOB #: 93004058 · SEQ #: 30 p^~',o, 'cu~s: 0~T~,' SiDE'~A£~S," s~W~'~'f~ '~'~6~"S-~f", "~" f~L~'0'~ '6~"~"~ '6~~ PROJBCT LEGAL DESCRIPTION DRIVB FRO~ DIVISION A~ TO 250 F~ET ~$T OF ~ O~ NAY TAXLOT ACCOONT ~ITAT~B OWNER 17041322 00104 000 PENDING LON~ OAK D~P~ ~ BOX 42191 · U~E~ OR 97404 P~OP~R~ DEBCRZPTXON ~ 2002-098918. X~RO~B ~0~ SXDE~K/DRI~ AP~N $5,953.62 ST~ ~GES-OT~R $2,338.37 ST~ XMPRO~M~S $12, ~99 · 41 S~ ~GE-OTHER $7,362 . 60 ~ ST~ LIOn8 $6,518.42 ~ ' $1,740.33 ~ 8T~ET T~ES EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Action: East Campus Plan Amendments An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram and the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study Diagram and Text; Amending Sections 9.8865 and 9.9570 of the Eugene Code 1971; Adding New Sections 9.4200, 9.4210, 9.4215, and 9.4220 to that Code; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date Meeting Date: March 8, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 6 Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Allen Lowe www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: (541) 682-5113 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY The City Council will consider action on an ordinance adopting amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram, the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study, and the Eugene Code to set policy and guide future development in the East Campus planning area. BACKGROUND Council Action History On September 22, 2003, the council initiated the proposed amendments to facilitate the review process for the University of Oregon's proposal to expand campus development into the East Campus area. On November 10, 2003, the council approved a schedule for processing the amendment package and approved the Planning Director's authority to revise that schedule at her discretion. On February 11, 2004, the council held a work session to discuss the plan amendment proposal. On February 23, 2004, the council held a public hearing on the proposed amendments. Policy Issues Should priority be given to funding a study of Agate Street, between Franklin Boulevard and 19th Avenue, as a means of identifying improvements or actions necessary to improve the function and capacity of that street? Should priority be given to funding an area-wide traffic calming study of the Fairmount Neighborhood as a means of identifying improvements necessary to reducing cut-through traffic and traffic speeds on neighborhood streets? L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040308\S0403086.doc Council Goals SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY DEFELOPMENT A community that retains a high quafity of life anda healthy economy, effectively finks' landuse and transportation planning, and successfully manages growth and change in the urban environment. The proposed plan amendments will support and encourage redevelopment of the East Campus area by allowing the expansion into the area of a variety of institutional uses including classrooms, research facilities, dormitories and other forms or higher density housing, and offices and other support facilities. Land use and transportation planning linkages are achieved through the proposed policy and text amendments to the neighborhood plan and the Eugene Code. Financial and/or Resource Considerations The cost of the recommended study of Agate Street is estimated at $15,000. The estimated cost of an area-wide traffic study for the Fairmount Neighborhood is $20,000. Implementation costs cannot be established until the investigation and recommendations of both studies are completed Other Background Information The public hearing testimony included a request from the University of Oregon that the adopting ordinance be revised to address four items. The Fairmount Neighborhood Association, in its written and oral testimony, accepted all of the changes proposed by the University. City staff has no objections to any of the proposed revisions. Accordingly, the adopting ordinance has been revised as requested. Following the hearing, staff was asked to provide answers to several questions asked by the council. Those questions are addressed in Attachment B. The council left the public hearing record open through Monday, March 1, 2004. Written testimony received through that date is included in Attachment C. Timing The council has approved a schedule for processing the amendments. That schedule identifies March 8, 2004, as the date on which ordinances would be adopted. OPTIONS The council may: 1. Adopt the ordinance as presented; 2. Adopt the ordinance with revisions; or 3. Decline to adopt the ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the council adopt the ordinance as presented. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040308\S0403086.doc SUGGESTED MOTION Move to adopt an ordinance amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram and the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study Diagram and Text; amending sections 9.8865 and 9.9570 of the Eugene Code 1971; adding new sections 9.4200, 9.4210, 9.4215, and 9.4220 to that code; adopting a severability clause; and providing an effective date. ATTACHMENTS A. Proposed Ordinance B. Staff Memorandum: Response to Council Questions C. Written Testimony Submitted at Council Public Hearing D. Excerpt on grade-separated facility design from Accommodating the Pedestrian FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Allen Lowe Telephone: (541) 682-5113 Staff E-Mail: allen.d.lowe~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040308\S0403086.doc ATTACHMENT A ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM AND THE FAIRMOUNTIUNIVERSlTY OF OREGON SPECIAL AREA STUDY DIAGRAM AND TEXT; AMENDING SECTIONS 9.8865 AND 9.9570 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971; ADDING NEW SECTIONS 9.4200, 9.4205, 9.4210, 9.4215, AND 9.4220 TO THAT CODE; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: A. On September 22, 2003, the Eugene City Council initiated amendments to the Land Use Code to allow concurrent processing with an application to amend the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study diagram and text. B. The amendments contained in this Ordinance are based on an application submitted by the University of Oregon and the recommendation of the Planning Commission. C. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendments contained in this Ordinance on November 18, 2003, and has forwarded its recommendations to the City Council for amendments to the Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram, Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study Diagram and Text, and the Eugene Code, 1971, which have been incorporated herein. THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram is amended to change 29.7 acres of land from the High-Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Low Density Residential designations to the Government and Education designation, as shown on the attached Exhibits A and B, which are incorporated herein. Section 2. Consistent with the provisions of Section 9.7750(4) of the Eugene Code, 1971 the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study (the "SAS")land use diagram located on page 36 of the SAS is amended to redesignate land currently designated as General Institutional, Institutional/Medium Density Residential with Special Review, Residential Hall Related With Special Review, and Low Density Residential to the Institutional designation; and to redesignate land currently designated as Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential with Site Review, and Opportunity Area with Site Review to the Limited High Density Residential/Limited Institutional designation, as more specifically reflected on attached Exhibits B and C, which are incorporated herein. The Ordinance- ] C:\Documents and Settings\cepladl\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKA\Fairmount UofO SAS Ordinance (00071961 )2.DOC(02/24/04) City Council Agenda page 197 legend of the land use diagram on page 36 of the SAS is revised to delete the following designations: I/M Institutional/Medium Density Residential With Special Review, Gl General Institutional, RHR Residential Hall Related With Special Review, M Medium Density Residential With Site Review, and O Opportunity Area With Site Review. The legend is also revised to add the following designation: LHDR/LI Limited High Density Residential/Limited Institutional. Section 3. The General Policies (page 1) of the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study ("SAS") text is amended as follows: (a) General Policies 2 and 3 (page 1 ) are amended, and a new Policy 8 is added thereto, to provide as follows: 2. With the exception of 1 ) the "[©pportun!ty] Institutional Area" ([~] "1' on the Land Use Diagram), 2) the Limited High Density Residential/Limited Institutional Area ("LHDR/LI" on the Land Use Diagram) and 2-) 3) the Department of Motor Vehicles site ("S" on the Land Use Diagram), non-residential zoning shall not be expanded in the study area. 3. With the exception of 1 )[ *~'~' half k~,-,,-~, o,.;., .. ~ ,-, ,, ,-, ,~, .... * .-;,~, ,-¢ ~A..oo ~*"'"* ~'"*' .... '~ 1 7t~ ^ ......... ,~ *r.,~ "~,-,.,,-,~, ,,.;,,, ^..~.~,, 2)] that ODOT I ................................ ~.~. ........ j ..... , portion of the ands designated for residential use, and [3-)] 2) University lands designated as "Institutional" or [""~""c'*'"";+" ^'"""~ "Limited High Density Residential/Limited Institutional", zone vr"l"' ''~'"~7 · ~"~'~ J changes to increase residential density or commercial intensity are not supported by this plan. This policy allows the opportunity for future residential development on the ODOT lands (approximate density for residential development on the ODOT lands will be addressed by selection of one of the alternative policy statements found in the Oregon Department of Transportation Section - Section D). 8. The City shall encourage applicants who desire amendments to this plan to involve the collaboration of the City and the Fairmount Neighborhood in the review and revision process. (b) Policy 1 of the University of Oregon Lands Policies (East Campus Area) (page 2) of the SAS is amended, and new Policies 6, 7, 8 and 9 are added thereto, to provide as follows: 1. The City of Eugene and the Fairmount Neighbors recognize the current University-adopted East Campus Policy as a statement of University policy ["~ [,.; ..... ;,,, .,~ r~ ..... r', .... [ ..... , D,.[;,.,, ,-...., ,-, ...... ^'"~ f"~*"'" Apr!! 2~, ! 932)/' ............ ~ .................... ~,, governing land use in the East Campus Area. Ordinance - 2 C:\Documents and Settings\cepladl\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKA\Fairmount UofO SAS Ordinance (00071961 )2.DOC(02/24/04) City Council Agenda page 198 6. On University-owned East Campus lands within the state-approved University boundary, the following policies shall apply in the Low Density Residential area: (a) The only uses that may be permitted with a conditional use permit are University-owned office uses and similar support functions provided, in addition to the other criteria for a conditional use permit, those uses are compatible with a low- density residential environment. (b) As part of a conditional use permit application, the University shall demonstrate that office uses and similar support functions do not generate more automobile trips than other Iow-density residential uses allowed in the zone and that adequate off-street parking is provided. (c) The City shall not grant conditional use permits to more than seven of the tax lots in the Low Density Residential area and no more than' five of the seven tax lots having a conditional use permit shall be located along Villard Street. (d) The preservation and maintenance of the historic architectural, single-family residential character of the Low Density Residential area is an integral part of the surrounding neighborhood. New development shall demonstrate compatibility with this historic architectural, single-family residential character, located east and south of the East Campus area, through consideration of appropriate building mass, building scale, historic architectural style, setbacks, building and entrance orientation, roof pitch and mitigation of off-site impacts. (e) The Low Density Residential area along the south edge of the East Campus Area may be developed as passive or active open space. 7. The University shall ensure long-term maintenance for street-front landscaping on University-owned properties along Villard Street. 8. In an effort to maintain the Fairmount Neighborhood's character, the University shall consider contributing ranked historic houses that must be moved from other areas within the state-approved University lands due to development plans for infill projects, or to replace a non- contributing house in the University-owned Low Density Residential area, if feasible. 9. The City shall attach the site review overlay zone to the University's properties at the northwest corner of 15th and Villard. In addition, Site Review shall be required for new development within 100 feet of the Ordinance - 3 C:\Documents and Settings\cepladl\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLKA\Fairmount UofO SAS Ordinance (00071961 )2.DOC(02/24/04) City Council Agenda page 199 one privately-owned, owner-occupied parcel within the /EC East Campus Overlay Zone (TL 3400, map 18-03-05-11) as long as the property is privately owned. (c) The Traffic Circulation Policies (page 3) of the SAS are amended by adding new Policies 6, 7, 8 and 9 thereto, to provide as follows: 6. By March, 2005, the City shaft initiate a study of Agate Street between Franklin Boulevard and 19th Avenue. That study, conducted jointly with the University and the Fairmount Neighborhood Association, shaft identify strategies to improve the function and carrying capacity of Agate according to the City criteria for its designated street classification. The City will implement the necessary changes. The University will participate in those improvements as development occurs and as required by City code, to the extent that the University is directly responsible for the needed improvements. 7. The City, with the cooperation of the University and the Fairmount Neighborhood Association, shall initiate an area-wide traffic calming study for the streets within the Fairmount/University of Oregon Sp cial Area Study boundary to determine appropriate mitigation for through- traffic utilizing neighborhood streets. Such study shall be initiated prior to December, 2008, subject to availability of funds. In the event that the City updates the Central Area Transportation Study (CA TS) prior to 2008, the City shall fund and initiate an area-wide traffic calming study as part of the CATS update to determine appropriate mitigation measures for the subject area. 8. If a Traffic Impact Analysis that is required by the City Code projects that a proposed development will increase traffic on streets within the single-family neighborhood to the east and south of University-owned land the City shaft require the applicant to mitigate those impacts through the use of traffic calming strategies or other mechanisms designed to discourage through traffic. 9. With the exception of alleys, vacations of streets within the state- approved University East Campus boundary should not be permitted, unless the applicant, at his or her expense, provides to the City a local street connection study that demonstrates how the proposed street system remaining after such vacation meets the intent of Eugene Code street connectivity provisions and that such vacation will not increase traffic volumes on local residential streets. Ordinance - 4 C:\Documents and Settings\cepladl\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKA\Fairmount UofO SAS Ordinance (00071961 )2.DOC(02/24/04) City Council Agenda page 200 (d) Policy 4 of the Parking Policies (page 4) of the SAS is amended, and a new Policy 9 is added thereto, to provide as follows: 4. Parking systems adopted for any area within the special study area should avoid creating parking problems for any other area or land use of the Fairmount Neighborhood by mitigating parking impacts on the surrounding neighborhood as directed by the City. 9. New parking structures proposed by the University within the East Campus area shall be located and designed to discourage traffic through adjacent neighborhood streets, shall provide routing to and from the structure via an arterial or collector street, and shall provide access to the structure in a manner consistent with adopted City policies and City Code provisions. (e) The last paragraph of the "Introduction to the Plan Area" Section (page 5) of the SAS is amended as follows: This r~,,-~,-,1 Special Area Study contains [a-seetie~ select policies [er~ from the Lp,,~.~, ,j University of Oregon 2003 East Campus development policy, affecting land owned by the University. ~ These~..~r~;~" ;~.~ ,,~, .... ,~ policies are contained in the land use sec nL .................. ~ ......................... ~ .... · .............. ~' Oregon~,~"~*'~*~"1, ,,,,,~., ~.,~, ,, of this Special Area Study. The University policies not adopted into this SpecialArea Studywill guide the University in its planning and decision making regarding public facilities and se~ices in the east campus area. Fhe ~;*" ~ ..... a . ..... ;~ +~csc -~';-;~-1 The Special Area Study will be ~,.] ~.,,v,, ,~,,,~ .,, ~,,~,~.j consulted in the public's evaluation of private and public development requests. It is intended that this Special Area Study will gain wide circulation so that the private sector and the University, as well as other institutional and commercial land holders, will consult and take guidance from this plan in forming plans that have an effect in this area. (f) The first sentence of the last paragraph of the "Use of the Plan" Section (page 6) of the SAS is amended as follows: This plan is a long range, comprehensive plan and, as such, should be occasionally reviewed and updated r/,~,,- ~,,-: ..... ;,,, n .... ~ ..... + D,-,,; .... """;~;""'"' "+"*"° i* (g) The "Planning Process" Section of the SAS is amended by adding two new paragraphs after the last paragraph (page 7) to provide as follows: In 2002, the University of Oregon began a comprehensive update of its east Ordinance - 5 C:\Documents and Settings\cepladl\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKA\Fairmount UofO SAS Ordinance (00071961)2.DOC(02/24/04) City Council Agenda page 201 campus development policy. The goal of the update was to provide for the future campus land needs without diminishing the quality of the surrounding neighborhood. Since the 1982 adoption of the SAS, the University has developed numerous facilities within the east campus area (Knight Law School, Museum of Natural History, Graduate Student Housing, East Campus Children's Center). The area's development potential, as constrained by SAS policies, University East Campus policies, and University Long Range Development Plan policies, had been almost maximized. The amended Land Use Diagram (Map 6) reflects the expanded Institutional area, Limited High Density Residential/Limited Institutional area, and Low Density Residential buffer established to meet the goal of the policy update. An explanation of the process used to develop the University's updated East Campus Development Policy is contained in Section II. E of this Plan. (h) "Land Use" Goal 8 (page 9) is amended as follows: 8. To respond to the need expressed in the Metro Plan for r~,;,-,~ · ~'"o~*".....,.,,,, rocidenti~l] institutional use along Agate Street in the zone of University land ownership, and to provide that [medium ~'-"o~*,, "*~ ........... *~'"' *" *~ ~";~"'~"~ *"~ I, limited high ............. ~, ............... = ............~ non-institutiona density residential and limited institutional uses serve as a buffer between,......,r .... r., h!?~h .. ..,'~ ""o ;*' a,.., .~ ~ intensive institutional uses and the existing single-family residential area south of [17t~-~ 15tn Avenue or east of the [Moss / ~;,..-,~..,,..,.. ....,.....~,...~,, .~,,..~,-.,..,,1 University East Campus Limited High Density Residential/Limited Institutional area. (i) The Part II Land Use General Policies 2 and 3 (page 15) of the SAS are amended, and a new Policy 8 is added thereto, to provide as follows: 2. With the exception of 1 ) the "r,~,.~,,..,,,... ~.~.....~.'";*"~,,.~ Institutional Area" ([~] "1" on the Land Use Diagram), 2) the Limited High Density Residential/Limited Institutional Area ("LHDR/LI" on the Land Use Diagram) and [2-)] 3) the Department of Motor Vehicles site ("S" on the Land Use Diagram), non- residential zoning shall not be expanded in the study area. the ODOT lands designated for residential use, and [,~] 2.) University lands designated as "Institutional"~.,',~ ,r" r~ ,- ,', ,- ,*,... ~. ~. .. , .-,,.-~'~';*" .~....,..'"o'q, "Limited High Density Residential/Limited Institutional", zone changes to increase residential density or commercial intensity are not supported by this plan. This policy allows the opportunity for future residential development on the ODOT lands Ordinance - 6 C:\Documents and Settings\¢epl~dl\Lo¢~l Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKA\F~irmount UofO SAS Ordinance (00071961 )2.DOC(02/24/04) City Council Agenda page 202 (approximate density for residential development on the ODOT lands will be addressed by selection of one of the alternative policy statements found in the Oregon Department of Transportation Section - Section D). 8. The City shall encourage applicants who desire amendments to this plan to involve the collaboration of the City and the Fairmount Neighborhood in the review and revision process. (j) Policies 1 and 2 of The Core Residential Area Policies (page 19) of the SAS are amended as follows: 1. With the exception of 1 ) the "[©ppc."tur,!t¥] Institutional Area" ([~] "1" on the Land Use Diagram), 2) the Limited High Density Residential/Limited Institutional Area ("LHDR/LI" on the Land Use Diagram) and [2-)] 3) the Department of Motor Vehicles site ("S" on the Land Use Diagram), non- residential zoning shall not be expanded in the study area. !! I~11 ~1 I~ ~1~1 I ~/ / ] L~1 Iv i i~11 ~lV~l[ ~1 i~ ~1~1 i~ ~1 i~ ~g~ gl~ ~1 the ODOT lands designated for residential use, and [g}] 2) University lands r"~,-,,.,.,,, ,,.;,,, ~.,~-~'q "Limited High Density designated as "Institutional" or, .. ~.,. ........ ~ ..... , Residential/Limited Institutional", zone changes to increase residential density or commercial intensity are not supported by this plan. This policy allows the opportunity for future residential development on the ODOT lands (approximate density for residential development on the ODOT lands will be addressed by selection of one of the alternative policy statements found in the Oregon Department of Transportation Section - Section D). (k) Policy 1 of the Franklin Boulevard Community Commercial Strip Policies (page 20) of the SAS is amended as follows: 1. With the exception of 1 ) the ,,rr~..,....,,,... ~.~..., ...,'";*"~,,.,, Institutional Area" ([~):] "1" on the Land Use Diagram), 2) the Limited High Density Residential/Limited Institutional Area ("LHDR/LI" on the Land Use Diagram) and [2-)] 3) the Department of Motor Vehicles site ("S" on the Land Use Diagram), non- residential zoning shall not be expanded in the study area. (I) Policy 1 of the 19th and Agate Neighborhood Commercial Development (page 21) of the SAS is amended as follows: 1 With the exception of 1 ) the ,,rr',,.,...~, ,,.;,,,~ Institutional Area" ([:~:] "1" on · LV I'" I''~' ""' ' the Land Use Diagram), 2) the Limited High Density Residential/Limited Institutional Area ("LHDR/LI" on the Land Use Diagram) and [2--)] 3) the Ordinance - ? C:\Documents and Settings\cepladl\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKA\Fairmount UofO SAS Ordinance (00071961)2.DOC(02/24/04) City Council Agenda page 203 Department of Motor Vehicles site ("S" on the Land Use Diagram), non- residential zoning shall not be expanded in the study area. (m) The University of Oregon Lands, Description and Statement of the Problem section (pages 23 and 24) of the SAS is amended by amending the last paragraph on page 23, the first paragraph on page 24, and adding five new paragraphs thereto, to provide as follows: Through efforts made by the Fairmount Neighbors Planning Committee and by representatives of the University Planning Office, r ..... ,,-~;,.,,, ~,,-,, ,**~,,. ,,,.~ ..... ;,,,,.. the University of Oregon Plan for Development' East Campus Area,~..r,.,~;~..,~,, is] was developed and included as pad of this section in the 1982 Plan. Pe~inent polices contained in that Plan for Development were endorsed by the Fairmount Neighbors Special Area Planning Commi~ee and parallel policies adopted fOr its special area plan. Future cooperation be~een the University and the neighborhood may bring diminution of some of the other persistent problems. The 1982 University Development Policy [is~..~.~*~ +~.~ bc] was in [~ place ..... ~ ~ yecrc, ' :n for 20 years. It,~,,~r~o'- ;~.,~. ;"*,...,~,~ accomplished evolution of the campus through an orderly pa~ern in which increased intensity of land use [~ proceeded without "leapfrogging." r~ .... .~ ,~ ......,;' ,,-~*. ~ .... . .... ,,a ,~ a.~.,~.;, , ..... .~, ~; In 2002, the Universi~ of Oregon began a comprehensive update of its East. Campus Development Policy. The goal of the update was to provide for the future campus land needs without diminishing the quality of the surrounding neighborhood. Since the 1982 adoption of the SAS, the Universi~ has developed numerous facilities within the East Campus area (Knight Law School, Museum of Natural Histo~, Graduate Student Housing, East Campus Children's Center). The area's development potential, as constrained by SAS policies, Universi~ East Campus policies, and Universi~ Long Range Development Plan policies, had been almost maximized. The amended Land Use Diagram (Map 6) reflects the expanded Institutional area, Limited High Density Residential/Limited Institutional area, and Low Density Residential buffer established to meet the goal of the policy update. The Universi~ utilized an extensive public involvement process in forming the update, including numerous open houses, meetings, and mailings to the Fairmount neighbors and the neighborhood organization. Neighbor comments were considered in the development of the Universi~'s 2003 East Campus Development Policy and were incorporated into the policy as Ordinance - 8 C:~Documents and Settings~cepladELocal Settings~Tempora~ Internet Files~OL~Fairmount UofO SAS Ordinance (00071961)2.DOC(02/24/04) City Council Agenda page 204 appropriate. The East Campus Development Policy was adopted by the President's Office in April 2003 but was not adopted by the Eugene City Council. Future projects in the area will likely include support services, such as housing, offices and research space, that do not need to be within the University's established 7-minute walking distance of the core instructional area. In September 2003, the University submitted an application to amend the 1982 Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study for the purpose of incorporating changes in the plan made necessary by the University's adoption of the 2003 East Campus Development Policy. Commenting on the application, the Fairmount Neighborhood Association expressed concerns about the effectiveness of the proposed East Campus Development Policy in mitigating the impacts of University development on the surrounding neighborhood. The association subsequently commissioned the Fairmount Neighborhood Association East Campus Committee (Committee) to represent the neighborhood interests in the public hearing process. The Committee submitted testimony commenting on each of the University's individual proposals. While the Committee expressed support for many of the ideas and proposals put forth in the application, they also suggested modifications to certain policies or plan text and replacements or additions to other policies and text. Following the public hearing, the City engaged University staff and Committee representatives in a mediation process to seek agreement and resolve differences on the proposed policy and text amendments. Agreement between the University and Committee was reached on most of the issues discussed; those agreements are reflected in the maps, policies and other text adopted through this amendment process. (n) Finding 2 of the Findings for the University Lands Bounded by Agate and Moss Streets and 17th and 15th Avenues (page 24) of the SAS is amended, Finding 3 is deleted, and Findings 4, 5 and 6 are renumbered 3, 4 and 5, as follows: 2. The 6.14 acres between Agate and Columbia streets are characterized by the presence of numerous buildings. There =re '!,2 pr~ .................... ,~4= x ^ l,-, ,.[,.[ x^~3" ~ '~';'~;" m.,.,,.,., %/ .... ,.4. [o[~,.,,.4¥1 is the Knight School of Law, completed in 2001, the Museum of Natural History, the Vivian Olum Child Care Center, a fire station, an ROTC house and outbuilding, and a house used by University Services. These buildings occupy 4.09 acres. 1.61 acres are occupied by parking space and .44 acres by an alley which runs parallel to Agate Street. Ordinance - P C:\Documents and Settings\cepladl\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKA\Fairmount UofO SAS Ordinance (00071961)2.DOC(02/24/04) City Council Agenda page 205 [4]3. The 5.71 acres be~een Moss and Columbia streets are primarily used for University parking. The Bean parking lot covers 70 percent of this acreage and is used by students, faculty, and staff. Five buildings in the southeast corner of the remaining 1.5 acres are used for housing, a vacant church is used as a warehouse, and a paved cou~ is used for basketball. [~]4. Vehicular access into these University lands is primarily by way of 15th Avenue, Moss Street, and Columbia Street via 17thAvenue. These streets are currently ~o-way streets. A sidewalk connects 15th and 17th avenues along Columbia Street and is used as a through connector for cyclists and pedestrians. [~]5. Area residents in the May 1980 testimony at the joint elected official hearing on the Metropolitan Plan update indicated that increase in density in East Campus should occur no~h of 17th Avenue and west of Moss Street (1980). (o} Policy I of the Policies - East Campus Area Section (page 24) of the SAS is amended, and new policies 6, 7, 8, and 9 are added thereto, as follows: 1. The City of Eugene and the Fairmount Neighbors recognize the current University. adopted East Campus Policy as a statement of Universi~ April~,°~ .. ~/,~"°~ ,, ~ a ~.~*m. ~ .... .. ,~, ..~.*-~ ~,,,~,,.uu;"~;~" ,,,.~,.. ~,;"*~-* .;,~. , ,~ i~....~,~,.~,,.; ..... :*" gcvcrning 6. On Universi~-owned East Campus lands wiffiin the state-approved University bounda~, the following poficies shah apply in the Low Densi~ Residential area: (a) The Only uses that may be permi~ed with a conditional use permit are Universi~-owned o~ce uses and similar suppo~ functions provided, in addition to the other criteria for a conditional use permit, those uses are compatible with a Iow- densi~ residential environment. (b) As pa~ of a conditional use permit appfication, the Universi~ shah demonstrate that o~ce uses and similar suppo~ functions do not generate more automobile trips than other Iow-densi~ residential uses aflowed in the zone and that adequate off-street parking is provided. (c)The Ci~ shah not grant conditional use permits to more than Ordinance- ~0 C:~Documents and Se~ings~cepladELocal Settings~Tempora~ Intemet Files~OL~Fairmount UofO SAS Ordinance (00071961 )2.DOC(02/24/04) City Council Agenda page 206 seven of the tax lots in the Low Density Residential area and no more than five of the seven tax lots having a conditional use permit shall be located along Villard Street. (d) The preservation and maintenance of the. historic architectural, single-family residential character of the Low Density Residential area is an integral part of the surrounding neighborhood. New development shall demonstrate compatibility with this historic architectural, single-family residential character, located east and south of the East Campus area, through consideration of appropriate building mass, building scale, historic architectural style, setbacks, building and entrance orientation, roof pitch and mitigation of off-site impacts. (e) The Low Density Residential area along the south edge of the East Campus Area may be developed as passive or active open space. 7. The University shall ensure long-term maintenance for street-front landscaping on University-owned properties along Villard Street. 8. In an effort to maintain the Fairmount Neighborhood's character, the University shall consider contributing ranked historic houses that must be moved from other areas within the state.approved University lands due to development plans for infill projects, or to replace a non- contributing house in the University-owned Low Density Residential area, if feasible. 9. The City shall attach the site review overlay zone to the University's properties at the northwest corner of 15th and Villard. In addition, Site Review shall be required for new development within 100 feet of the one privately-owned, owner-occupied parcel within the /EC East Campus Overlay Zone (TL 3400, map 18-03-05-11) as long as the property is privately owned. (p) Proposal 1 of Proposal - East Campus Area Section (page 25) of the SAS is amended as follows: 1. The Cityr-"r°r""'"--"-"-~"'~] shall attach the site reviewr........,...,r"' ,~.,~;o*.;.-*l....j overlay zone to the University's properties at the northwest corner of 15th and Villard [,~,.o;..,...,.~,~ ,~,,. ~ .~,.,~ ,~o,~ r~; ....... ,'hA" .~.,.~ ,,r~,, ~ pply .... ~ ......o.q ............... ~ ................ ~ and shall a a special East Campus Overlay Zone specifying height limitations in the area designated as Limited High Density Residential/Limited Institutional on the Land Use Diagram. In addition, Site Review shall be required for new development within 100 feet of the one privately Ordinance - 11 C:\Docurnents and Settings\cepladl\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKA\Fairmount UofO SAS Ordinance (00071961 )2.DOC(02/24/04) City Council Agenda page 207 owned parcel within the/EC East Campus Overlay Zone that is owner- occupied (TL 3400, Map 18-03-05-11, a portion of Parcel 1, Block 17, Fairmount Addition), as long as the property is privately owned. (q) The entire Section of the SAS entitled "University of Oregon Development Policy East Campus Area" (pages 28 through 34) is deleted and new text is added as follows: ~;r~, ,m~n~o, , ~n~ ~n~;~;~n~ t~,~rronf ~ ~f~ ~r~ r~,,;~t~,., ~n~ r~,~O~ nr~~ ,~,;11 ...................... Ordinance- 12 G:~Documents and Settings~cepladELocal Se~ings~Tempora~ Internet Files~OL~Fairmount UofO SAS Ordinance (00071961 City Council Agenda page 208 In~;~;~n~l ~r~ W!+~;"., ,,., +~c.,,., ...... ~_ .~ a "'~-'-, there .,~--~ +h..e.,,,~ ~o' .k ~, ~_~ '--,~. which ~;~,,.~, ~,,.+ ~, ,~,, ~.~. Gcnara~ Institutional 1 ~+~ e+.~+ +~ ¢~[,.~k~ S+.cet, 15~ A"enue tc Ordinance- 13 C:XDocumonts and Se~in~sXcepladlXkocal Settin~sX/empora~ Intomet FilesXOk~XFairmount ~ofO SAS Ordinance (0007~ ~0~ )2.DOC(02/24/04) City Council Agenda page 209 ~n~ ~ nr~;~o ~ I~;~n ;~r ~o;n n~n r~o;~on~;ol ~mm~n;~ ~r;~n~ o~;s~;~;~o ~, ~h ~ ~ho ~h;l~ ~r~ ~on~or ~r ~ ~mm~ ~n;~ ~n~or ~ho~ ~on ~ .... *;"" ;" ~-cc!de-*;a~ env~ronmont. ................... ~ ............... Il 0~1 , i I .... ' .... ~r ~Cr~ r~;N~n~;~l ~hnr~r ~; N, ,;IN;n~ ~,,;11 N~ m~;n~;n~N ~t~n ;;~h~* ~r~ , ,~N ~nr oholl h~ ~ nr~;~o ;~r h;~ ~n~;~ r~o;~on~;ol ~o~l~n~n~ ;~r ;n~;~ Ordinance - 14 C:XDocumonts and Se~in~sXcopladlX[ocal Sottin~sXlompora~ Intomot FilesXOk~XFairmount HofO SAS Ordinance (0007~ ~ )2.~OC(02/24/04) City Council Agenda page 210 T~ ..... ; .... process for ~ .... ~ ..... + ~* +h~ ...... h~. ~ .... ~ .... ,~* ..... ; .... ~n~r~o' 3 ................... OR .... C~ Ordinance- 15 G:XDocuments and So~in~sXcepladlXkocal Sottin~sWempora~ Intomet FilosXOk~XFairmount ~ofO SAS Ordinance (0007~ ~ )2.DOG(02/24/04) City Council Agenda page 211 ~n~r~l ~,,rn~o~ In~;~,f;~n~l ~r~ /~ ~r~ ~ ~h,m~;~ ~r~ ............. ~-, ~ .................... ~ ......... 5 ~,,;IN;n~ N~;~N+ ~,;lN;n~ h~;~h+~ ~h~ll n~+ ~v~N +h~ I~. a. Four -+--'-- or b. :n or c. a ~;~+ "'~;ch '";" ~+ a ~ ........ +"- +~- that _. , .................. m~v,~u~ nll~,,nNl~ ~r nr~ rn+;~ ~11 Ordinance- 16 G:XDocuments and Settin~sXcepladlXkocal SottinosXTompora~ Intemot Filos[Ok~XFairmount UofO SAS Ordinance (0007~ 0~ )2.DOG(02/24/04) City Council Agenda page 212 /I C~NI~r ~e~e-~ ~r~,~,~r~ ~k~ll ~ o;~ ~n ~k~ I~f ~ hot ~~~Avcn ....... .................... ~ ~ .................. ...... ~ ........ ~ ....... H ........... ~ ~ ..... ~'~' '~ ' '~" ~vml,:~N ;r~m mil ~nl~, ..... ~ ......... ROW. .......................................... ,,,. nr~ni~;~n ~; Ordinance- 17 G:XDocumonts and So~in~sXcepladlXkocal Settin~sXTompora~ Intomot FilesXOk~XFairmount HofO SAS Ordinance (0007~ 0~ )2.DOG(02/24/04) City Council Agenda page 213 '''~'~"'~1 ~' ~'~--,.~. ~-~, ..,~.~-~,~;~ ~v;~..~., ~1..~.,~1~..~.~ ~,,.v m~¥ b~ exprecced. ~:,-,r,~,.-,Ih, ~;I,-,.,I ,,,i~h fh~ I"';~,, TO ~-h~ ,.,-,~i,,~,,,,,.,-, ,~v~.~,.,~. The University adopted an updated East Campus Development Policy in 2003. It is generally consistent with the policies, text, and land use diagram contained within this plan as amended. The University will use the updated policy for its internal development review process. Select policies contained within the 2003 University East Campus Development Policy have been adopted within this special area study. Ail applicable City of Eugene regulations remain in effect. {r) lhe last paragraph of the Introduction to the Land Use Diagram (page 35) of the SAS is amended as follows: The Land Use Diagram and Text should be used in conjunction with each other and should not be viewed as separate entities. The symbols on the diagram, designating different uses, directly correlate to the uses explained in the Diagram Text. In otherwords, [~)c] ([Opportunity] "l"lnstitutional [Ama)] on the Diagram is explained under the [Oppc,'t. unity .~,mc ] Institutional section of the Diagram Text. (s) The land use diagram (page 36) of the SAS is replaced by the Land Use Diagram for East Campus Lands as shown on the attached Exhibit C, which is incorporated herein. (t) The Land Use Diagram Text (pages 37 through 39) is amended as follows: Low-Density Residential (L) This area generally encompasses the south and east portions of the special study area. This area is to remain in Iow density residential use with emphasis on preserving and maintaining the single family character which currently exists and is considered an integral part of the neighborhood. Ordinance- ]8 C:\Documents and Settings\cepiadl\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKA\Fairmount UofO SAS Ordinance (00071961 )2.DOC(02/24/04) City Council Agenda page 214 On University-owned lands within the state approved University boundary, the limitations on Conditional Uses described in Policy #6 of the University of Oregon Lands Policies - East Campus Area apply. Maintaining the symmetry along Villard Street between 15th and 19~" Avenues is important. However, the University-owned Low Density Residential area not facing Villard Street may be developed as passive or active open space to provide a buffer from the adjacent low density residential area. Low- or Medium Density Residential (L/M This area is currently owned by the Oregon State Department of Transportation (ODOT). It contains the Eugene Office of the State Police, the District Engineer's Office, and the maintenance facility for the Highway Division. The State has expressed interest in relocating these functions. The diagram indicates the area should be for Iow- or medium-density residential uses should the State decide to relocate in the future. Development in the area should preserve a parklike border along Franklin Boulevard to preserve the "gateway entrance" to the city. Site review procedures will be followed in future development to protect nearby residences and ensure a "parklike gateway." Hi.qh-Density Residential (H) This area currently contains a 36ounit apartment and Tommy Williams' florist store and greenhouse. The properties are zoned R-4 (High-Rise Residential). If the florist business is discontinued, the site is appropriate for high-density residential uses, but site review procedures should be attached to protect and buffer Iow-density residential uses next to and across the street from this area. Professional/Office (S) Ordinance- lP C:\Documents and Settings\cepladl\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKA\Fairmount UofO SAS Ordinance (00071961)2.DOC(02/24/04) City Council Agenda page 215 This site is currently owned 'by the State Department of Transportation and contains the East Eugene drive test center for the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Should the DMV leave this site, it is appropriate for office or professional uses to locate there. Access will continue to be taken from Walnut Street. Park/Open Space (P) This designation recognizes the existing Fairmount Park. It should continue in park use in the future. Institutional (I) lhe institutional aroa contains a numbor of usos includin~ automobilo parkinG, residonco halls, various Univorsity offico and usos, a tiro station, and r~-~- ~-~-~+- A ~o ~l~.+~n, Q~h~ll ~ ~11 ~ ............ U ...................... ~ ....... ~ ~ ......... The entire area is owned by the University (State Board of Higher Education) with the privately owned residential lots. r:v;~+; .........~ ~,.~,~ ~v~+;~n ~+N~ I~r~ ~l~b ~,,n~ ~, A~+~ ~+~+ +h~ I In;~/~r~if~/ ~; ~r~n ~oo+ P~mn~,~ ~,~l~nm~n+ D~I;~;~ I All Universi~ related uses are allowed in t~i~ area. ...... ~ ................. ~3~ ...... r~n~r~l In~;~,,~;~l /~1~ ~ ~ v ~ ~'/ , ,,,~ ~,~ ,~ ~,v~..~ ,~, v~ ,~ ,~,~,,~ ~,. v~,~,~] ~, ~,~,~ ,,,~,~.~,,~, ............ Ordinanco - 20 C:XDocuments and Settin~sXcopladEkocal So~in~s[Tompora~ Intornet Filos[Ok~XFairmount ~ofO Ordinance (0007~ ~ )2.DOC(02/24/04) City Council Agenda page 216 Limited High Density Residential / Limited Institutional (LHDR/LI). This area serves as a transition between the more intensive institutional uses to the west and north and the Iow density residential development to the east and south. Future uses include university housing (excluding dorms) and support services such as offices, outdoor recreation uses, storage, parking, and open space. Development will be regulated by the Eugene Code, including an East Campus Overlay Zone where it has been applied, specifying special development standards for this area, and by the University's East Campus Poficies (see East Campus Policy adopted by the University for detail). Commercial (C) There are two commercial areas within the special study area serving the neighborhood: major commercial facilities north of 15th Avenue, primarily facing Franklin Boulevard; and a Community Commercial node at 19th Avenue and Agate Street. Both areas shall remain in commercial uses with no further expansion of commercial zoning in either area. In order to protect existing residential uses on the south side of 15th Avenue, site review procedures will be attached to properties facing 15th Avenue east of the alley between Moss Street and Villard Street eastward to the ODOT lands. (u) New Policies 6, 7, 8, and 9 are added to the Traffic Circulation Policies in Part III of the SAS (page 43) as follows: 6. By March, 2005, the City shall initiate a study of Agate Street between Franklin Boulevard and 19th Avenue. That study, conducted jointly with Ordinance - 21 C:\Documents and Settings\cepladl\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKA\Fairmount UofO SAS Ordinance (00071961 )2.DOC(02/24/04) City Council Agenda page 217 the University and the Fairmount Neighborhood Association, shall identify strategies to improve the function and carrying capacity of Agate according to the City criteria for its designated street classification. The City will implement the necessary changes. The University will participate in those improvements as development occurs and as required by City code, to the extent that the University is directly responsible for the needed improvements. 7. The City, with the cooperation of the University and the Fairmount Neighborhood Association, shall initiate an area-wide traffic calming study for the streets within the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study boundary to determine appropriate mitigation for through- traffic utilizing neighborhood streets. Such study shall be initiated prior to December, 2008, subject to availability of funds. In the event that the City updates the Central Area Transportation Study (CA TS) prior to 2008, the City shall fund and initiate an area-wide traffic calming study as part of the CA TS update to determine appropriate mitigation measures for the subject area. 8. If a Traffic Impact Analysis that is required by the City Code projects that a proposed development will increase traffic on streets within the single-family neighborhood to the east and south of University-owned land the City shall require the applicant to mitigate those impacts through the use of traffic calming strategies or other mechanisms designed to discourage through traffic. 9. With the exception of alleys, vacations of streets within the state- approved University East Campus boundary should not be permitted, unless the applicant, at his or her expense, provides to the City a local street connection study that demonstrates how the proposed street system remaining after such vacation meets the intent of Eugene Code street connectivity provisions and that such vacation will not increase traffic volumes on local residential streets. (v) Policy 4 of the Parking Policies (page 46) of the SAS is amended, and a new Policy 9 is added thereto, to provide as follows: 4. Parking systems adopted for any area within the special study area should avoid creating parking problems for any other area or land use of the Fairmount Neighborhood by mitigating parking impacts on the surrounding neighborhood as directed by the City. 9. New parking structures proposed by the University within the East Ordinance - 22 C:\Documents and Settings\cepladl\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLKA\Fairmount UofO SAS Ordinance (00071961 )2.DOC(02/24/04) City Council Agenda page 218 Campus area shall be located and designed to discourage traffic through adjacent neighborhood streets, shall provide routing to and from the structure via an arterial or collector street, and shall provide access to the structure in a manner consistent with adopted City policies and City Code provisions. Section 4. Except as amended in Section 3 of this Ordinance, all other provisions of the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study as adopted by Resolution 3719 remain in full force and effect. The policies amended in Section 3 are adopted as a refinement of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan for the Fairmount/ University of Oregon Special Area Study area. Any explanatory text following a policy is recognized as clarifying and explaining the intent of the policy. Proposals amended in Section 3 are recognized as potential means of reaching or implementing adopted policies, but are not adopted as City policy. The University's amendments to the East Campus Development Policy are recognized as the University's policy for land under its ownership, but except for those policies set forth in Section 3 above, are not adopted as City policy. Section 5. The following caption and Sections 9.4200, 9.4205, 9.4210, 9.4215, and 9.4220 are added to the Eugene Code, 1971, to provide: /EC East Campus Overlay Zone 9.4200 Purpose of the/EC East Campus Overlay Zone. The/EC East Campus Overlay Zone is intended to implement the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study by providing for a land use transition between the University of Oregon and the adjacent low density residential neighborhood to the east and south. 9.4205 /EC East Campus Overlay Zone Sitin.q Requirements. If consistent with the approval criteria in EC 9.8885 Zone Chan.qe Approval Criteria, the/EC Overlay Zone may be applied to the area depicted as Limited High Density Residential/Limited Institutional on the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study Land Use Diagram. 9.4210 /EC East Campus Overlay Zone .Applicability. The/EC Overlay Zone applies to all property to which the/EC Overlay Zone has been applied through the City's rezoning process. 9.4215 /EC East Campus Overlay Zone Prohibited Uses and Special Use Limitations. (1) Prohibited Uses. Ordinance - 23 C:\Documents and Settings\cepladl\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKA\Fairmount UofO SAS Ordinance (00071961)2.DOC(02/24/04) City Council Agenda page 219 (a) Structured parking. (b) Broadcasting studios including commercial and public education. (c) University and college dormitories. (d) Fraternities and sororities. (e) Hospitals. (f) Retail use requiring a Transportation Impact Analysis. (g) Manufacturing and assembly uses. (h) Arenas. (i) Heliports and helistops. (j) Recycling and large collection facilities. (k) Recycling scrap and dismantling yards. (I) Race tracks, including drag strips and go-cart tracks. (m) Sewage treatment plants. (n) Correctional facilities. (o) Parking lots exceeding 100 spaces. (p) Service stations. (q) Mineral resource mining. (r) Blood banks. (s) Plasma centers. (2) Special Use Limitations. Within the/EC East Campus Overlay Zone, camping is permitted for a maximum of 2 continuous days only when directly tied to a special event permit held for the location of the camping site. A special event permit approving camping is required by the City to ensure minimal impact on the surrounding neighborhood. 9.4220 /EC East Campus Overlay Zone Development Standard~. (1) Application of Standards. The General Standards for all Development in EC 9.6000 through EC 9.6885, the special standards for specific uses in EC 9.5000 through EC 9.5850, as weft as all development standards in the appftcable base zone apply within this overlay zone, including triggers for Traffic Impact Analysis and Site Review for certain uses in the PL zone. In the event of a conflict between the development standards, the specific provisions of EC 9.4215 and 9.4220 shaft control The standards in this section only apply to: (a) New development on vacant land. (b) New structures on redevelopment sites, such as conversion of a parking area to a building or demolition of a building and construction of a new building. (c) A proposed expansion of 30% or more of the total existing structure square footage. Ordinance - 24 C:\Documents and Settings\cepladl\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKA\Fairmount UofO SAS Ordinance (00071961 )2.DOC(02/24/04) City Council Agenda page 220 (2) Building Height. Within the/EC East Campus Overlay Zone, a building within 60 feet of an R-1 Low Density Residential zone shall not exceed 30 feet in height. All other buildings shall not exceed 45 feet in height. Section 6. Subsection (4) of Section 9.8865 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended by adding a new subparagraph (I) thereto and relettering the current subparagraphs (I) and (m) to (m) and (o), to provide: 9.8865 Zone Change Approval Criteria. Approval of a zone change application, including the designation of an overlay zone, shall not be approved unless it meets all of the following criteria: (4) The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable siting requirements set out for the specific zone in: (I) EC 9.4205/EC East Campus Overlay Zone Siting Requirements. [I]m) EC 9.4715/WP Waterside Protection Overlay Zone Sitinq Requirements. [re]n) EC 9.4815/WB Wetland Buffer Overlay Zone Sitinq Requirements. Section 7. Subsections (3), (4) and (5) of Section 9.9570 of the Eugene Code, 1971, are amended to provide: 9.9570 Fairmount/U of O Special Area Study Policies. (3) University of Oregon Lands Policies (East Campus Area). (a) The City of Eugene and the Fairmount Neighbors recognize the current ["]University- [of Oregon r~ .... adopted East Campus ~-'-'~ ~'~*'-'~ ~ ofof .... , ,,~ ,r,,, g;,,a;~,, ;,,,~,~5 ,,~ ~h,~l Policy ............... , as a statement of University[;] poficy governing land use in the East Campus Area. (Policy 1) (b) The City shall encourage the University to use its property in East Campus in an orderly fashion: intensity of use will be greatest near the already dense Central Campus Area (Agate Street and 15th Avenue) and become less intense as the properties approach Iow-density residential uses. (Policy 2) (c) The City shall encourage the University to use its lands currently zoned PL (Public Land District) with energy and Ordinance - 25 C:\Documents and Settings\cepladl\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKA\Fairmount UofO SAS Ordinance (00071961 )2.DOC(02/24/04) City Council Agenda page 221 space efficient structures and land-use patterns. (Policy 3) (d) The City shall encourage the University to develop high- and medium-density residential units with concern for adequate parking and appropriate parking solutions, regard for landscaping, and consideration of the impact on the rest of the neighborhood. (Policy 4) (e) The City shall encourage the University to consolidate nonresidential uses that currently are scattered throughout the area into the portions of the plan area reserved for institutional use, returning structures thus vacated to residential use. (Policy 5) (f) On University-owned East Campus lands within the state approved University boundary, the following policies shall apply in the l_ow Density Residential area: 1. The only uses that may be permitted with a conditional use permit are University. owned office uses and similar support functions provided, in addition to the other criteria for a conditional use permit, those uses are compatible with a low-density residential environment. 2. As part of a conditional use permit application, the University shall demonstrate that office uses and similar support functions do not generate more automobile trips than other low-density residential uses allowed in the zone and that adequate off-street parking is provided. 3. The City shall not grant conditional use permits to more than seven of the tax lots in the Low Density Residential area and no more than five of the seven tax lots having a conditional use permit shall be located along Villard Street. 4. The preservation and maintenance of the historic architectural, single-family residential character of the l_ow Density Residential area is an integral part of the surrounding neighborhood. New development shall demonstrate compatibility with this historic architectural, single-family residential character, located east and south of the East Campus area, through consideration of appropriate building mass, building scale, historic architectural style, setbacks, building and entrance orientation, roof pitch and mitigation of off-site impacts. Ordinance - 26 C:\Documents and Settings\cepladl\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLKA\Fairmount UofO SAS Ordinance (00071961)2.DOC(02/24/04) City Council Agenda page 222 5. The Low Density Residential area along the south edge of the East Campus Area may be developed as passive or active open space. (Policy 6) (g) The University shah ensure long.term maintenance for street-front landscaping on University-owned properties along Villard Street. (Policy 7) (h) In an effort to maintain the Fairmount Neighborhood's character, the University shah consider contributing ranked historic houses that must be moved from other areas within the state-approved University lands due to development plans for infill projects, or to replace a non-contributing house in the University-owned Low Density Residential area, if feasible. (Poficy 8) (i) The City shah attach the site review overlay zone to the University's properties at the northwest corner of 15th and Villard. In addition, Site Review shah be required for new development within 100 feet of the one privately-owned, owner-occupied parcel within the/EC East Campus Overlay Zone (TL 3400, Map 18-03-05-11) as long as the property is privately owned. (Policy 9) (4) Traffic Circulation Policies. (a) The Depa .rtment of Motor Vehicles site shall continue to gain access from Walnut Avenue and not from Franklin Boulevard. (Policy 1) (b) The adverse effects of motor vehicle movement shall be mitigated as much as possible. (Policy 2) (c) Primary vehicular access to the Oregon Department of Transportation Land should minimize impact on nearby residences and Fairmount Park. (Policy 3) (d) Traffic management techniques shall continue to be used and new techniques developed to reinforce the idea of a hierarchy of streets in the plan area. Some streets shall combine their local, collector, or arterial function with a role as primary pedestrian or bicycle ways. The use of Iow- volume, local neighborhood streets for through movements by truck and heavy construction equipment shall be discouraged. (Policy 4) (e) By March, 2005, the City shah initiate a study of Agate Street between Franklin Boulevard and 19th Avenue. That study, conducted jointly with the University and the Fairmount Neighborhood Association, shah identify strategies to improve the function and carrying capacity of Agate according to the City criteria for its designated Ordinance - 27 C:\Documents and Settings\cepladl\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKA\Fairmount UofO SAS Ordinance (00071961)2.DOC(02/24/04) City Council Agenda page 223 street classification. The City will implement the necessary changes. The University will participate in those improvements as development occurs and as required by the City code, to the extent that the University is directly responsible for the needed improvements. (Policy 6) (f) The City, with the cooperation of the University and the Fairmount Neighborhood Association, shall initiate an area-wide traffic calming study for the streets within the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study boundary to determine appropriate mitigation for through-traffic utilizing neighborhood streets. Such study shall be initiated prior to December, 2008, subject to availability of funds. In the event that the City updates the Central Area Transportation Study (CA TS) prior to 2008, the City shall fund and initiate an area- wide traffic calming study as part of the CA TS update to determine appropriate mitigation measures for the Subject area. (Policy 7) (g) If a Traffic Impact Analysis that is required by the City Code projects that a proposed development will increase traffic on streets within the single-family neighborhood to the east and south of University-owned land, the City shall require the applicant to mitigate those impacts through use of traffic calming strategies or other mechanisms designed to discourage through traffic. (Policy 8) (h) With the exception of alleys, vacations of streets within the state-approved University East Campus boundary should not be permitted, unless the applicant, at his or her expense, provides to the City a local street connection study that demonstrates how the proposed street system remaining after such vacation meets the intent of the Eugene Code street connectivity provisions and that such vacation will not increase traffic volumes on local residential streets. (Policy 9) (5) Parking Policies. (a) Steps shall be taken to gain better use of existing off-street parking areas and to discourage long-term storage of vehicles on the street. (Policy 1) (b) The adverse effects of motor vehicle parking shall be mitigated as much as possible. (Policy 3) (c) Parking systems adopted for any area within the special Ordinance - 28 C:\Documents and Settings\cepladl\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKA\Fairmount UofO SAS Ordinance (00071961 )2.DOC(02/24/04) City Council Agenda page 224 study area should avoid creating parking problems for any other area or land use of the Fairmount Neighborhood by mitigating parking impacts on the surrounding neighborhood as directed by the City. (Policy 4) (d) New parking structures proposed by the University within the East Campus area shall be located and designed to discourage traffic through adjacent neighborhood streets, shall provide routing to and from the structure via an arterial or collector street, and shall provide access to the structure in a manner consistent with adopted City policies and City Code provisions. (Policy 9) Section 8. The findings set forth in Exhibit D attached hereto are adopted as findings in support of this Ordinance. Section 9. The City Recorder, at the request of, or with the concurrence of the City Attorney, is authorized to administratively correct any reference errors contained herein or in other provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971, to the provisions added, amended or repealed herein. Section 10. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof. Section 11. Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided in the Eugene Charter of 2002, this Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from the date of its passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor, or upon the date of its acknowledgment as provided by ORS 197.625, whichever date is later. Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this day of ,2004 ~ day of ., 2004 City Recorder Mayor Ordinance - 29 C:\Documents and Settings\cepladl\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKA\Fairmount UofO SAS Ordinance (00071961)2.DOC(02/24/04) City Council Agenda page 225 Exhibit A UNIVERSITY OF OREGON EAST CAMPUS LANDS Propo d Metro Plan Designations · ~ Government and Education D 17TH AVE 18TH AVE ~ Council 227 Oregon East Campus Lands Spreadshe t Number Existing Metro Plan Des. Proposed Metro Plan Des. Existing Falrmount SAS Des. Proposed Falrmount SAS Des. Owner 6600 LDR Government and Education Opportunity Area LHDR/LI State of oregon 7000 LDR Government and Education LDR LHDR/LI State of Oregon 7~100 LDR Government and Education LDR LHDPJI. I State of Oregon 7200 LDR Government and Education LDR LHDR/LI State of Oregon 7300 LDR Govemment and Education LDR LHDR/LI State of Oregon 7400 LDR Government and Education LDR LHDR/LI State of Oregon 7500 LDR Government and Education MDR/SR LHDR/LI State of Oregon 7600 LDR Government and Education MDR/SR LHDFULI . State of Oregon 7700 LDR Govemment and Education MDPJSR LHDR/LI State-of Oregon 7800 LDR Government and Education MDR/SR LHDR/LI State of Oregon 8'100 LDR Government and Education Opportunity Area LHDR/LI State of Oregon 5700 LDR Government and Education LDR LHDR/LI State of Oregon 5800 LDR .Gov & Educ (w 60') LDR (e 100')* LDR LHDPJLI (w 60'), LDR (e 100')* State of Oregon 5900 LDR Gov & Educ (w 60') LDR (e 100') LDR LHDFULI (w 60'), LDR (e t00') State of Oregon 6000 LDR Gov & Educ (w 80') LDR (e 100') LDR LHDR/LI (w 60'), LDR (e 100') State of Oregon 6100 LDR Gov & Educ (w 60') LDR (e 100') LDR LHDR/LI (w 60'), LDR (e 100') State of Oregon 6200 LDR Gov & Educ (w 60') LDR (e 100') LDR LHDFULI (w 60'), LDR (e 100') State of Oregon. 6300 LDR Gov & Educ (w 60') LDR (e 100') LDR LHDPJLI (w 60'), LDR (e 100') State of Oregon 6400 LDR Gov & Educ (w 60!) LDR (e 100') LDR LHDR/LI (w 60'), LDR (e 100') State of Oregon 6500 LDR Gov & Educ (w 60') LDR (e t00') LDR LHDR/LI (w 60'), LDR (e 100') State of Oregon 6900 LDR Government and Education LDR LHDR/LI State of Oregon 7200 LDR Government and Education MDPJSR LHDPJLI ~tate of Oregon 7600 LDR Government and Education MDR/SR LHDR/LI State of Oregon 7700 LDR Government and Education MDR/SR LHDR/LI State of Oregon 7800 LDR Government and Education MDPJSR LHDR/LI State of Oregon 7900 LDR Government and Education MDR/SR LHDR/LI State of Oregon 8000 LDR Government and Education MDR/SR LHDR/LI State of Oregon 8100 LDR Government and Education MDRJSR LHDR/LI State of Oregon 8200 LDR Government and Education MDR/SR LHDR/LI State of Oregon 8300 LDR Government and Education MDR/SR LHDR/LI State of Oregon 8400 · LDR . Government and Education MDPJSR LHDR/I.I State of Oregon 8500 LDR Govemment and Education LDR LHDR/t.I State of Oregon 8600 LDR Govemment and Education LDR LHDR/LI .State of Oregon 8800 LDR Government and Education LDR LHDR/LI State of Oregon 8900 LDR Government and Education LDR LHDPJLI State of Oregon 9001 LDR Govemment and Education LDR LHDR/LI State of Oregon NUmber Ex. Metro Plan Des. Proposed Metro Plan Des.' Ex. Falrmount SAS Des. P~oposed Falrmount SAS Des. Owner (continued) 9002 LDR Government and Education LDR LHDR/LI State of Oregon 9103 LDR Govemment and Education LDR LHDR/LI State of Oregon 9104 LDR Government and Education LDR. LHDR/LI State of Oregon 9105 LDR Government and Education LDR LHDR/LI State of Oregon 9108 LDR Government and Education LDR LHDR/LI State of Oregon 9400 LDR Government and Education LDR LHDR/LI State of Oregon 100 MDR Government and Education I: RHR Institutional State of Oregon 500 MDR Government and Education I: I/MDR Institutional State of Oregon 600 MDR Government and Education I: I/MDR Institutional State of Oregon 700 MDR Govemment and Education I: I/MDR Institutional State of Oregon 800 MDR Government end Education I: I/MDR Institutional State of Oregon 900 MDR Govemment and Education I: RHR/I/MDR * Institutional State of Oregon 1100 HDR (3ovemment and Education I: Gl Institutional State of Oregon 1300 HDR Govemment and Education I: (31 Institutional State of Oregon 1500 HDR Govemment'and Education I: Gl Institutional State of Oregon 1600 HDR Government and Education I: Gl Institutional State of Oregon 1700 HDR Government and Education I: (31 Institutional State of Oregon 1800 HDR Government and Education I: GIII/MDR Institutional State of Oregon 1899 HDR Govemment and Education I: GIIIIMDR Institutional State of Oregon 1900 HDR Government and Education I: GI/I/MDR Institutional · State.of Oregon 2000 HDR Government and Education LDR Institutional State* of Oregon 2t00 HDR Government and Education LDR Institutional Hoffman 2101 HDR Government and Education LDR Institutional Hoffman 2200 HDR Government and Education LDR Institutional State of oregon 2300 HDR Govemment and Education LDR Institutional State of Oregon 2400 MDR Government and Education LDR LHDR/LI State of.Oregon 2500 · MDR Government and Education LDR Institutional State of Oregon 2600 MDR Government and.Education LDR Institutional State of Oregon 2700 MDR Government and Education LDR Institutional State of Oregon 2800 MDR Govemment and Education LDR Institutional State of Oregon 2900 MDR Government and Education LDR Institutional State of Oregon 3000 MDR Government and Education LDR Institutional State of Oregon 3100 MDR Government and Education LDR Institutional State of Oregon 3200 MDR Government and Education LDR Institutional State of Oregon 3300 MDR Government and Education LDR Institutional State of Oregon 3400 MDR Government and Education LDR LHDR/LI Dumond Number Ex. Metro Plan Des. Proposed Metro Plan Des, Ex, Falrmount SAS Des, Proposed Fairmount SAS Des, Owner 4302 LDR Government and Education LDR LHDR/LI State of Oregon 4303 LDR Government and Education LDR LHDR/LI State of Oregon 5900 LDR Government and Education LDR LHDPJLI State of oregon 6000 LDR Government and Education LDR LHDR/LI State of Oregon 6101. LDR Government and Education LDR LHDR/LI State of Oregon 6102 LDR Government and Education LDR LHDR/LI State of Oregon 6103 LDR Government and Education LDR LHDR/LI State of Oregon 100 MDR Government and Education LDR LHDR/LI State of Oregon 200 MDR Government and Education LDR LHDPJLI State of Oregon 300 LDR Government and Education LDR LHDR/LI State of Oregon 400 LDR Govemment and Education LDR LHDR/LI State of Oregon 600 LDR Govemment and Education LDR LHDRJLI State of Oregon 1700 LDR Government and Education LDR LHDR/LI' State of Oregon 1800 LDR Government and Education LDR LHDPJLI State of Oregon t 900 LDR Government and Education LDR LHDFULI State of Oregon 2000 LDPJMDR Govemment and Education LDR LHDR/LI State of Oregon 2100 HDR Government and Education LDR Institutional State of Oregon 2200 HDR Government and Education LDR Institutional State of Oregon 2300 LDR Government and Education LDR Institutional State of Oregon 2400 LDR Government and Education LDR Institutional State of Oregon 2500 LDR Govemment and Education LDR Institutional State of Ore,Ion *Spilt designations are approximate and will be' resolved thrOu~lh the rezone process. ' Map 6 Land Use Diagram (Generalized Future Land Use Patterns) ~ Institutional ?: ¢ ~;i :'ii~, ~ :i ¢;~;I i!ii?:, C Commercial L Low Density Residential ,:: ; ;;; or ~; ,~;::: ;';: H High Density Residential ~ p Par~Open Space S Professional/Office Fairmount Special Area Study Exhibit D Findings for AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM AND THE FAIRMOUNT/UNIVERSITY OF OREGON SPECIAL AREA STUDY DIAGRAM AND TEXT; AMENDING SECTIONS 9.8865 AND 9.9570 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971; ADDING NEW SECTIONS 9.4200, 9.4205, 9.4210, 9.4215, AND 9.4220 TO THAT CODE; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Comprehensive Plan Diagram Amendments Eugene Code Section 9.7730(3) requires that the following criteria (in bold and italic) be applied to a Metro Plan diagram amendment. (a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning Goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. Goal 1 Citizen Involvement: To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The City has acknowledged provisions for citizen involvement that ensure the opportunity for citizens to be invdlved in all phases of the planning process and set out requirements for such involvement. The action taken did not amend the citizen involvement program. The process for adopting these amendments complied with Goal 1 since it complied with, and surpassed the requirements of, the citizen involvement provisions. The City of Eugene land use code implements Statewide Planning Goal 1 by requiting that notice of the proposed amendments be given and public hearings be held prior to adoption. Consideration of the East Campus Plan amendments began with a Eugene Planning Commission public heating on November 18, 2003. Department of Land Conservation and Development notice, notice to property owners and interested parties and newspaper publication was provided for that hearing. An additional public hearing before the Eugene City Council is scheduled for February 23, 2004. Notice to interested and affected parties will be provided for that heating. The process for adopting these amendments complies with Goal 1 since it complies with, and surpasses the requirements of the State's citizen involvement provisions. The City of Eugene has determined that the multiple applications to be considered will be processed as a Type V (legislative) process. The proposed amendment applications are subject to the public notification and heating processes adopted by the City of Eugene in Eugene Code section EC 9.7720 and 9.7735. The notification and heating processes required by the code have been followed, even though the City Council approved an alternative process and schedule for the East Campus Plan Amendment applications on City Council Agenda page 235 November 10, 2003, as provided for in (EC) 9.7750(1). On September 22, 2003 the Eugene City Council initiated the code amendment process allowing the three separate applications to be processed concurrently. On October 1, 2003 the City delivered notice of the proposed plan amendments to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, as required by EC 9.7415(1) and in accordance with State statutes. On October 17, 2003 a referral concerning the pending applications was sent to the Springfield and Lane County Planning Directors, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), and the Fairmount Neighborhood Association consistent with EC 9.7415(2) and 9.7720. On October 17, 2003 a notice of the Planning Commission public heating was mailed to the applicant, owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of the subject property, the Fairmount Neighborhood Association, and other groups requesting such notice in accordance with EC 9.7451(2). Notice of the Planning Commission's public hearing on the proposed plan amendments was published in the Register-Guard on October 24, 2003 in accordance with EC 9.7735(3). The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments on November 18, 2003. On February 131 2004 a notice of the City Council public hearing was mailed to all interested parties in accordance with EC 9.7545. The City Council is scheduled to hold a public heating on the proposed amendments on February 23, 2004. The applicant cites additional efforts to involve citizens in the planning process prior to submitting the East Campus Area plan amendment applications to the City. During the year preceding the submittal, the University of Oregon conducted a year-long public involvement process that included more than 20 public information and public comment sessions. Details of the University's public involvement process are included in the applicant's statement and exhibits. Goal 2 - Land Use Planning: To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the policy tool that provides a basis for decision-making in this area. The Metro Plan was acknowledged by the State in 1982 to be in compliance with statewide planning goals. These findings and record show that there is an adequate factual base for decisions to be made concerning the proposed amendments. Goal 2 requires that plans be coordinated with the plans of affected governmental units and that opportunities be provided for review and comment by affected governmental units. To comply with the Goal 2 coordination requirement, the City coordinated the adoption of these amendments with all affected governmental units. Specifically, notice was mailed to the Eugene Water and Electric 2 City Council Agenda page 236 Board, Oregon Department of Transportation, Lane County Public Works, Lane Transit District, and Eugene School District 4-J. There are no Goal 2 exceptions required for this ordinance. Goal 3 - Agricultural Land: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. The amendments are for property located within the city limits and do not affect any land designated for agricultural use. Therefore, Goal 3 is not applicable or relevant to the amendments. Goal 4 - Forest Land: To conserve forest lands. The amendments are for property located within the city limits and do not affect any land designated for forest use. Therefore, Goal 4 is not applicable or relevant to the amendments. Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources: To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources. There are no known natural resources, open spaces, or scenic areas requiring protection within the amendment area boundary. The proposed amendments will allow for redevelopment of land within the amendment area boundary in accordance with university, city, metro and statewide policy related to the protection of natural resources and the preservation and creation of community open spaces. With respect to historic resources, there are no known designated historic sites, structures, or districts within the amendment area boundary. With respect to carrying capacity of land, air, and water resources, the proposed amendments will provide for intensification of development on land inside the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary, and will utilize existing facilities and services. The amendments, therefore, will reduce pressure for development on the urban fringe and will reduce the potential need to expand the UGB and impact surrounding land, air, and water resources. The proposed amendments do not create or amend the metropolitan area's list of Goal 5 resources, do not amend a code provision adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address a specific requirement of Goal 5, do not allow new uses that could be a conflicting use with a significant Goal 5 resource site, and do not amend the acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary. The uses allowed on the properties will not change as a result of the actions, as the properties are not being re-zoned as a part of these actions, and no new regulations are being applied to the properties as a result of these 3 City Council Agenda page 237 actions. Therefore, Goal 5 does not apply. Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water, and land resources of the state. The proposed amendments, if adopted, would provide for intensification of development on state-owned (University) land that is currently underdeveloped. The amendments would promote infill development, thus providing for more efficient use of land resources within the city limits. The applications submitted by the University do not amend the metropolitan area's air, water quality or land resource policies. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 6. Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards. The subject parcels are not located within areas of natural disasters or hazards. The site is outside the 100 year flood zone and is not subject to hazards normally associated with steep slopes, wildfires, or tsunamis. Other hazards, such as earthquakes or severe winter storms can be mitigated at the time of development based on accepted building code and techniques. Based on the evidence, the amendments are consistent with Goal 7. Goal 8 - Recreational Needs: To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. Goal 8 ensures provision of recreation facilities to Oregon citizens and is primarily concerned with the provision of those facilities in non-urban areas of the state. The proposed amendments will not impact provision of recreational facilities, nor will they affect access to existing or future recreational facilities. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 8. Goal 9 - Economic Development: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. There is no land designated for industrial or commercial development within the area affected by the proposed amendments. Therefore, the proposed amendments do not affect the need for or supply of commercial and industrial land within the City. The proposed amendments will provide for the expansion of University-related office and educational uses, which could stimulate the creation of new jobs in the area. Increased development intensities and future construction of new residential units in the area could provide additional support for existing businesses along Franklin Boulevard and Villard Street. Based on the evidence, the proposed amendments are consistent with Goal 9. 4 City Council Agenda page 238 Goal 10 - Housing: To provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the state. The land affected by these amendments was not included in the area's documented supply of"buildable land" that is available for residential development. The methodology used to develop the acknowledged 1999 Residential Lands Study excluded vacant land owned by a public agency and not intended for residential development from consideration as "buildable land". Publicly owned land is generally not considered available for residential use. The State Board of Higher Education owns 113 of the 122 parcels located within the affected area. Nine parcels remain in private ownership. Of the nine privately-owned parcels, four parcels are in the area proposed for re-designation to another land use classification. The four parcels total .51 acres in size. Goal 10 requires that communities plan for and maintain an inventory ofbuildable residential land for needed housing units. The Metropolitan Area General Plan - Residential Land and Housing Element implements Goal 10 by providing background data and analysis, findings and policies related to the provision of residential lands inside the urban growth boundary. With the adoption of the 1999 Residential Lands Study, the following finding was incorporated into the Metro Plan: "There is sufficient buildable residential land within the existing urban growth boundary to meet the future housing needs of the projected population. In fact, the 1992 residential buildable land supply exceeds the 1992-2015 residential land demand in all residential categories. Assuming land is consumed evenly over the period, by 1999, there will be at least a 20 year supply of residential land remaining inside the urban growth boundary" The proposal would change the Metro Plan designation on two parcels from High Density Residential to Government and Education. Those parcels (17-03-32-44-02100 and 02101) total. 13 acres in size. The 1999 Residential Lands Study indicates that, within the category of High Density Residential, there are 60 acres of land in excess of projected demand. The proposal would change the Metro Plan designation on one parcel from Medium Density Residential to Government and Education. That parcel (17-03-32-44-03400) totals. 18 acres in size. The 1999 Residential Lands Study indicates that, within the category of Medium Density Residential, there are 239 acres of land in excess of projected demand. The proposal would change the Metro Plan designation on one parcel from Low Density Residential to Government and Education. That parcel (18-03-04-22-06000) totals .20 acres in size. The 1999 Residential Lands Study indicates that, within the category of Low Density Residential, there are 940 acres of land in excess of projected demand Even if this land was included in the region's inventory ofbuildable residential land, the City Council Agenda page 239 removal of.51 acres would still result in sufficient land to meet projected demand in each category. Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services: To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. The area affected by this ordinance is located inside the city limits and is served by the public facilities in which the existing level of service is adequate to serve the needs of existing and future development. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 11. Goal 12 - Transportation: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. Goal 12 is implemented through the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) provides the regional policy framework through which the TPR is enacted at the local level. The Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060) states that land use changes that significantly affect a transportation facility shall require mitigation measures to address the anticipated impacts. The rule states that: (1) Amendments to functional plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans, and land use regulations which significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards (e.g. level of service, volume to capacity ration etc.) of the facility. This shall be accomplished by either: (a) Limiting allowed land uses to be consistent with the planned function, capacity, and performance standards of the transportation facility; (b) Amending the TSP to provide transportation facilities to support the proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of this division; (c) Altering land use designations, densities, or design requirements to reduce demand for automobile travel and meet travel needs through other modes; or (d) Amending the TSP to modify the planned function, capacity and performance standards, as needed, to accept greater motor vehicle congestion to promote mixed use, pedestrian-friendly development where multi modal travel choices are provided. (2) A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it: 6 City Council Agenda page 240 (a) Changes the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; (b) Changes standards implementing a functional classification system; (c) Allows types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access which are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation facility; or (d) Would reduce the performance standards of the facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in the TSP. On August 1, 2003 the applicant submitted the University of Oregon East Campus Lands Trip Generation Study (dated November 17, 2002) as information supporting the plan amendment applications. On August 30, 2003 City staff requested additional information fi.om the applicant regarding traffic impacts, including data related to the operation of 7 intersections within and adjacent to the East Campus planning area. On October 27, 2003, the applicant submitted most, but not all of the requested data in a revised East Campus Lands Traffic Impact Study (TIS) dated October 22, 2003. On October 31, 2003 City staff requested additional information related to the mid-block pedestrian crossing on Agate Street, PM peak turning movements at several intersections, and assumptions related to the number of parking spaces in future parking structures that might be built ' within the East Campus area. On November 4, 2003 the applicant submitted all of the materials requested by City staff. Several streets intersect or border the area affected by the proposed amendments. Those streets include Agate Street, 15th, 17th and 19th avenues, Columbia, Moss and Villard streets. Agate and Villard are accessed from the north via Franklin Boulevard, a state facility. Franklin Boulevard, Agate and 19th are classified as "major streets" on the City of Eugene Street Classification Map, adopted in 1999. Franklin Boulevard is classified as a Major Arterial; Agate as a Minor Arterial, and 19th as a Neighborhood Collector. All other streets in the area are classified as local streets. The proposed amendments will not change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility. Nor will they change standards implementing a functional classification system. Further, the amendments will not allow types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access which are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation facility. Though the amendments will not reduce the performance standards of the facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in the TSP, this finding warrants some additional discussion. The TIS concludes that the intersection of Agate Street with Franklin Boulevard will exceed ODOT level of service standards (Franklin Blvd. is a state highway) by 2025 with or without the proposed plan amendments. Even though this would exceed the maximum volume to capacity ratio allowed for the facility through the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP), the plan amendments will not cause a "significant effect" on the area transportation system. In spite of this finding, the TIS suggests and 7 City Council Agenda page 241 recommends the addition of a right turn lane on the eastbound approach to the intersection, but notes that such a condition should not be a mitigation measure made necessary by the proposed plan amendments. City staff concurs with this determination and find that the plan amendments do not meet the "significant affect" measure as defined in OAR 660-012-0060. The TIS also notes that, with the exception of the Agate at Franklin intersection, mitigation measures on Agate Street are not necessary until very near the end of the 20 year study period. The siting of a proposed parking structure to replace the existing Bean complex surface parking lot will affect the location and extent of mitigation measures. The study also contains a suggested traffic calming diverter for the intersection of 17th at Villard. Staff has recommended that an area-wide traffic calming study of the area east of Villard and north of 19th Avenue be conducted prior to deploying any traffic calming measures. Goal 13 - Energy Conservation: To conserve energy. Goal 13 states, in part, that land use planning should, to the maximum extent possible, "...combine increasing density gradients along high capacity transportation corridors to achieve greater energy efficiency" and "...seek to recycle and reuse vacant land and those which are not energy efficient" The proposed amendments promote conservation of energy by allowing for intensification of development on land that is currently served by a full range of public services and facilities. Redevelopment and infill development on the land subject to the amendments will increase opportunities for on-campus student housing, thereby reducing home-to-work trips encountered by students who live off-campus. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 13. Goal 14 - Urbanization: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. For the properties involved in this application, all necessary urban services are in place. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 14. Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway: To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway. The subject property is not within the Willamette River Greenway. Therefore, this goal is not relevant and the amendments will not affect compliance with Goal 15. Goal 16 through 19 (Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean Resources): City Council Agenda page 242 There are no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources related to the property or involved in the amendment. Therefore, these goals are not relevant and the amendments will not affect Metro Plan compliance with Goals 16 through 19. (b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. The amendments are consistent with the Metro Plan diagram and text. Those Metro Plan policies that are arguably applicable are addressed below. 1. Metro Plan Housing Policy A-2 Residentially designated land within the UGB should be zoned consistent with the Metro Plan and applicable plans and policies; however, existing agricultural zoning may be continued within the area between the city limits and the UGB until re-zoned for urban use. The applicant proposes to re-designate approximately 16 acres of land. While this application does not include a re-zoning action, the applicant has stated the intention of ultimately re-zoning the property, consistent with the underlying designation. As discussed above, publicly owned land is generally not considered available for residential use; the subject area was not identified in the 1999 Residential Lands Study as available for residential use. Thus, the proposal to re-designate, and ultimately re-zone these lands for Government and Education use is consistent with Metro Plan Housing Policy A-2. 2. Metro Plan Housing Policy A-3 Provide an adequate supply of buildable residential land within the UGB for the 20 year planning period at the time of periodic review. Of the 29.7 acres affected by the amendment, all but .51 acres are in public ownership. Land in public ownership was not considered available for residential development in the 1999 Residential Lands Study, and was not factored into the inventory ofbuildable lands for that study. The proposed amendments would re-designate 14 acres of Low-Density Residential, 6.2 acres of Medium-Density Residential, and 9.5 acres of High-Density Residential land to Government and Education. The 1999 Residential Lands Study indicates that, for each of these categories, there is sufficient buildable residential land within the urban growth boundary to meet future housing needs for the 20 year planning period. Even if this shift were to be viewed as a reduction in the residential land supply, the region would still have an "adequate supply" of residential land. The Residential Lands Study indicates that for the High Density Residential category, there were 60 acres of land in excess of projected demand; for the Medium Density Residential category, there were 239 acres of land in excess of projected demand; and for the Low Density Residential category, there were 940 acres of land in excess of projected demand. City Council Agenda page 243 3. Metro Plan Housing Policy A-13 Increase overall residential density in the metropolitan area by creating more opportunities for effectively designed infill, redevelopment, and mixed use while considering the impacts of increased residential density on historic, existing and future neighborhoods. The applicant has submitted, as part of their application, the 2003 East Campus Development Policy, that outlines the University's plans for redevelopment of the East Campus area. The policy was adopted by the University and incorporated into the University's Long Range Campus Development Plan. The East Campus Development Policy outlines a long-term redevelopment plan for the 30 acre site featuring intensive educational and institutional development in the interior of the site with less intensive uses where the campus meets the residential neighborhood. The application and the development plans of the University will provide for increased residential densities within the East Campus area and for the creation of a mixed land use pattern within an educational context. The East Campus Development Policy and those policies proposed for adoption by the City are designed to mitigate the impacts of increased residential density and institutional intensity on the historic neighborhood to the east and south of the campus area. Therefore, the application is consistent with Housing Policy A-13. 4. Metro Plan Housing Policy A-22 Expand opportunities for a mix of uses in newly developing areas and existing neighborhoods through local zoning and development regulations. The applicant has stated the intention of redeveloping the area with a mix of educational, research, and residential uses. Re-designation of the area to Government and Education, followed by re-zoning to the PL Public Land zoning district which provides for development of those uses, is consistent with Housing Policy A-22. 5. Metro Plan Housing Policy A-25 Conserve the metropolitan area's supply of existing affordable housing and increase the stability and quality of older residential neighborhoods through measures such as revitalization, code enforcement, appropriate zoning, rehabilitation programs, and relocation of existing structures, traffic calming, parking requirements, or public safety considerations. These actions should support planned densities in these areas. The University (State Board of Higher Education) owns all but nine of the 122 tax lots within the East Campus area. The applicants state their intention of redeveloping the site, over time, with a mixture of educational, research and residential uses and of selling existing houses on future development sites to local house movers for relocation to other sites. The application proposes retaining R-1 Low Density Residential zoning along Villard Street to "buffer" adjacent low- density development fi.om future institutional development. The application contains no proposals for rehabilitation programs, traffic calming projects, new parking requirements or public safety initiatives. The proposed 10 City Council Agenda page 244 zoning and plans to relocate existing structures are consistent with Housing Policy A~25. 6. Metro Plan Housing Policy A-35 Coordinate local residential land use and housing planning with other elements of this plan, including public facilities and services, and other local plans, to ensure consistency among policies. The proposal, if adopted, would clarify the Metro Plan Diagram, and, by extension, Metro Plan policies related to the arrangement of land uses in the region, by applying the Govemment and Education designation to parcels owned by the University (State Board of Higher Education). The Government and Education designations represent two of three categories described, in the Metro Plan, as Public and Semi-Public. As the Metro Plan provides for designation of publicly- owned land as Government and Education, the change from High Density Residential and Medium Density Residential to Government and Education represents a clarification of intent that furthers policy consistency and supports Housing Policy A-35. 7. Metro Plan Environmental Design Policy E-4 Public and private facilities shall be designed and located in a manner that preserves and enhances desirable features of local neighborhood areas and promotes their sense of identity. The proposed amendments include several policies and other elements intended to preserve and enhance desirable features and identity of the neighborhood. These include: · a policy that encourage existing residential structures to be moved or otherwise preserved when property is redeveloped; · a policy that ensures long-term maintenance for street-front landscaping on University-owned properties along Villard Street; · a policy that limits the size, scale and nature of conditional uses allowed on University-owned land within the low-density residential area fronting on Villard Street; · a policy that requires demonstration of compatibility of new development with the "historic architectural, single-family residential character" in the area to the east and south of the East Campus area; and · a "buffer" or transition area, lying between the single-family neighborhood and the intensive, institutional uses on the University campus. Within the transition area, building heights are limited and many uses are prohibited. 8. Metro Plan Public Facilities Policy G-5 The cities shall continue joint planning coordination with major institutions, such as universities and hospitals, due to their relatively large impact on local facilities and services. The City collaborates with the University of Oregon on a regular basis on matters pertaining to campus development and the impacts of campus development on surrounding neighborhoods. The City is a participant in meetings of the University/Community Liaison Committee, a group formed to facilitate discussions 11 City Council Agenda page 245 between the University and community representatives about the physical design and development of the campus and surrounding areas. Based on these findings, the amendments will not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. Refinement Plan Amendments Eugene Code Section 9.8424 requires that the following criteria (in bold and italic) be applied to a refinement Plan amendment. (1)(a) The refinement plan amendment is consistent with the Statewide planning goals. Goals 1 through 9. Refer to findings for goals 1 through 9 related to Comprehensive Plan Diagram amendment criteria in EC 9.7730(3), above. Goal 10. The land affected by these amendments was not included in the area's documented supply of"buildable land" that is available for residential development. The methodology used to develop the acknowledged 1999 Residential Lands Study excluded vacant land owned by a public agency and not intended for residential development from consideration as "buildable land". Publicly owned land is generally not considered available for residential use. The State Board of Higher Education owns 113 of the 122 parcels located within the affected area. Nine parcels remain in private ownership. Of the nine privately-owned parcels, four parcels are in the area proposed for re-designation to another land use classification. The four parcels total .51 acres in size. Goal 10 requires that communities plan for and maintain an inventory of buildable residential land for needed housing units. The Metropolitan Area General Plan - Residential Land and Housing Element implements Goal 10 by providing background data and analysis, findings and policies related to the provision of residential lands inside the urban growth boundary. With the adoption of the 1999 Residential Lands Study, the following finding was incorporated into the Metro Plan: "There is sufficient buildable residential land within the existing urban growth boundary to meet the future housing needs of the projected population. In fact, the 1992 residential buildable land supply exceeds the 1992-2015 residential land demand in all residential categories. Assuming land is consumed evenly over the period, by 1999, there will be at least a 20 year supply of residential land remaining inside the urban growth boundary" Goals 11 through 19. Refer to findings, above, for goals 11 through 19 related to Comprehensive Plan Diagram amendment criteria in EC 9.7730(3). 12 City Council Agenda page 246 (1)(b) The refinement plan amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. Applicable elements of the Metro Plan are evaluated under criterion 9.7730(3) (b) above, with respect to the proposed refinement plan amendments and metro plan amendments. The proposed refinement plan amendments are consistent with applicable policies contained in the Residential Land Use and Housing Element, with the Environmental Design Element, and with the Public Facilities and Services Element of the Metro Plan. (1)(c) The refinement plan amendment is consistent with the remaining portions of the refinement plan. Remaining portions of the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study relate to areas outside the East Campus boundaries or to general neighborhood policies. While the applicant initially proposed revisions to only three policies in the adopted refinement plan, the adopting ordinance proposes that five additional land use policies and 5 additional transportation and parking policies be included in the refinement plan amendments. The policies, text and map amendments proposed for adoption are all consistent with remaining portions of the refinement plan. The current refinement plan, adopted in 1982, recognizes the need for periodic updates to the plan. The text on page 6 of the plan states: "This plan is a long-range, comprehensive plan and, as such, should be occasionally reviewed and updated (the University Development Policy specifically sates it should govern for ten years from the date of its acceptance). Changes in conditions may dictate reconsideration of policies." (2) The refinement plan amendment addresses one or more of the following: (a) ~ln error in the publication of the Refinement Plan. (b) New inventory material which relates to a statewide planning goal (c) New or amended community policies. (d) New or amended provisions in a federal law or regulation, state statute, state regulations, statewide planning goal, or state agency land use plan. (e) ~1 change of circumstances in a substantial manner that was not anticipated at the time the Refinement Plan was adopted. The proposed amendments address EC 9.8424(2)(d) and (e). The University of Oregon Long Range Development Plan, a "state agency land use plan" referenced in subsection (d), has been amended with University adoption of the east Campus Development Policy. The adoption of that policy and updating of the Long Range Development Plan has triggered the need for consideration of the proposed 13 City Council Agenda page 247 comprehensive plan and refinement plan amendments in order to ensure consistency with those docurnents. The proposed amendments also address a "change in circumstances" not anticipated at the time the refinement plan was adopted by the Eugene City Council in 1982. Since adoption of that plan, more than 20 years ago, the University has grown substantially, resulting in numerous changes to the area. Those changes include construction of the Knight Law School, Museum of Natural History, Olum Child Care Center and Graduate Student Village, reconfiguration of the Bean parking lot, and removal of all of the 1940's era "vanport" buildings referenced in the Fairmount/UO SAS. The University has continued to acquire property in the area which, at the time the Fairmount/UO SAS was adopted, was in private or other public agency ownership. The University now owns 113 of the 122 tax lots located within the planning area. It should also be noted that the Fairmount/UO SAS states that the plan "...is a long range, comprehensive plan and, as such should be occasionally reviewed and updated" (page 6). The physical changes to the area, and change in ownership patterns constitute a change of circumstances that meets criterion (2)(e), above. Code Amendments Eugene Code Section 9.8065 requires that the following criteria (in bold and italic) be applied to a code amendment. (1) Is consistent with applicable statewide planning goals as adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. Goals 1 through 9. Refer to findings for goals 1 through 9 related to Comprehensive Plan Diagram amendment criteria in EC 9.7730(3), above. Goal 10. The land affected by these amendments was not included in the area's documented supply of"buildable land" that is available for residential development. The methodology used to develop the acknowledged 1999 Residential Lands Study excluded vacant land owned by a public agency and not intended for residential development from consideration as "buildable land". Publicly owned land is generally not considered available for residential use. The State Board of Higher Education owns 113 of the 122 parcels located within the affected area. Nine parcels remain in private ownership. Of the nine privately-owned parcels, four parcels are in the area proposed for re-designation to another land use classification. The four parcels total .51 acres in size. Goal 10 requires that communities plan for and maintain an inventory of buildable residential land for needed housing units. The Metropolitan Area General Plan - Residential Land and Housing Element implements Goal 10 by providing background data and analysis, findings and policies related to the provision of residential lands inside the urban growth boundary. With the adoption of the 1999 Residential Lands Study, the following finding was incorporated into the Metro Plan: 14 City Council Agenda page 248 "There is sufficient buildable residential land within the existing urban growth boundary to meet the future housing needs of the projected population. In fact, the 1992 residential buildable land supply exceeds the 1992-2015 residential land demand in all residential categories. Assuming land is consumed evenly over the period, by 1999, there will be at least a 20 year supply of residential land remaining inside the urban growth boundary" Goals 11 through 19. Refer to findings, above, for goals 11 through 19 related to Comprehensive Plan Diagram amendment criteria in EC 9.7730(3). (2) Is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and applicable adopted refinement plans. The adopted refinement plans that generally apply to this area include the Fairmount/UO Special Area Study, the Eugene Arterial and Collector Street Plan, and the Eugene Local Street Plan. The proposed code amendments are consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan, as described above (refer to findings, above, for applicable Metro Plan policies related to Comprehensive Plan Diagram amendment criteria in EC 9.7730(3)(b).) The proposed code amendments do not affect any of the adopted policies within either the Eugene Arterial and Collector Street Plan or the Eugene Local Street Plan, and do not affect any street classification on the Street Classification Map adopted as part of the Eugene Arterial and Collector Street Plan. Therefore, the proposed code amendments do not apply to either of those adopted refinement plan. (3) In the case of establishment of a special area zone, is consistent with EC 9.3020 Criteria for Establishment of an S Special Area Zone. The amendments do not establish a special area zone. 15 City Council Agenda page 249 Attachment B Planning & Development Planning City of Eugene 99 West 10t' Avenue MEMORANDUM ( 41Eugene'Oregon 97401) 682-5377 (541) 682-5572 FAX www.ci.eugene.or.us Date: March 8, 2004 To: Mayor and City Council From: Allen Lowe, Senior Planner, 682-5113 Subject: East Campus Plan Amendments At the conclusion of the public hearing on the East Campus Plan Amendments, several councilors asked staff to respond to a series of questions related to the proposal. Those questions are addressed below. 1. Comment on the potential for a parking structure in the East Campus area. Staff Response: The East Campus Development Policy and other materials submitted by the University indicate the potential for future construction of a parking structure in the East Campus area. The East Campus Development Policy restricts parking structures to the area designated for institutional use and further indicates that the most likely locations for a future parking structure are: (1) in the area currently occupied by the Bean parking lot or (2) near the intersection of 17th and Agate. The University's policy, which is not adopted by the City, is reinforced in the draft code amendment with the prohibition of structured parking (and large scale parking lots) in the proposed/EC East Campus Overlay Zone. City and neighborhood concerns about the location of a future parking structure are also addressed in proposed parking policy 9 which controls routing and access to a future parking structure. Fairmount neighborhood representatives agreed to the University's policies related to parking structures in the East Campus area with the additional restrictions placed on them in the draft neighborhood plan policies and land use code amendments. However, all those engaged in the mediation process recognize that construction of a parking structure anywhere within the East Campus area is likely to have a direct affect on the operation of Agate Street and could potentially affect the flow of traffic within the larger Fairmount neighborhood. The need for the two recommended traffic studies (Agate Street and area- wide traffic calming) would become much more urgent if a parking structure were proposed for the area. 2. What do we anticipate with area-wide traffic calming? Will traffic calming efforts in this neighborhood cause traffic to divert to other streets? City Council Agenda page 251 1 StaffResponse: Since this is a fairly constrained area bounded on the west by the University (with closed or restricted roadways) and on the east by Hendricks Park and the hillside and ridgeline extending between Judkins Point and 30th Avenue, the use of traffic calming strategies on Fairmount area streets is unlikely to result in diversion onto other neighborhood streets. 3. Do pedestrian overpasses really wo)k? What are the circumstances where they do work? StaffResponse: Overpasses are one type of grade-separated structure; underpasses are another. Either can be effective if properly sited and designed. Both types can also fail if used inappropriately or are poorly designed. Good and bad examples of both types can be found in Eugene or any other city that illustrate the many variables that determine whether grade-separation is an appropriate design option. An excerpt on grade separated structures from a manual on pedestrian facility design is attached (Attachment D) for those who want a more detailed explanation of the factors that influence successful design. Staff would encourage a broad exploration of design alternatives where grade- separation is contemplated. It would be difficult to assert that one type always "works" while another doesn't or that one type is inherently better than another. 4. Comment on the Fairmount Neighborhood Association proposal for a 35,000 square foot cap on CUP's. StaffResponse: The proposal is a reaction to a frequently expressed concern that the University will consolidate existing tax lots creating several larger tax lots on which large-scale redevelopment projects could occur. About the issue of lot consolidation, the testimony indicates that, "the Planning Commission expressed concern as well." It further indicates that "...the record should be made clear that the intent of the policy is not to allow for large-scale conditional uses with lot consolidations." The Planning Commission was initially concemed about the effect of theoretical lot consolidation. After an extensive discussion and exploration of options, the Planning Commission recommended adding several new criteria to those already required for approval of a conditional use permit within the R-1 zoned area. The criteria will require that new development demonstrate compatibility with the adjacent single-family residential character "...through consideration of appropriate building mass, building scale, historic architectural style, setbacks, building and entrance orientation, roof pitch and mitigation of off-site impacts." Ultimately, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the conditional use policy (Policy #6) without a restriction on contiguous uses. In the view of the Planning Commission, it had made the record clear that lot consolidation restrictions within the policy were not necessary and that the policy did not restrict the size of a conditional use, except as limited by the code and by the CUP approval criteria which could result in limitations on buildings scale and building mass through the discretionary review process. The Planning Commission felt that the new approval criteria would City Council Agenda page 252 2 account for the building scale issues that were at the heart of the neighborhood's concern. The Planning Commission discussion of this issue occurred mostly at the January 5, 2004 meeting. The minutes of that meeting accurately describe the ebb and flow of that conversation (see pages 3 through 7). Given the restrictions proposed through the CUP approval process, staff recommends against further restricting the total area in which conditional uses could be placed. 5. What would the neighborhood have said if they had known that traffic studies and mitigation wouM not be funded? Staff Response: Throughout the mediation process, staff stated repeatedly that no funding had been allocated for the additional traffic studies or for construction of indicated improvements. The University and neighborhood representatives were both made aware that Council had eliminated funding for the traffic calming program, that Fairmount was one of many neighborhoods that were seeking relief from speeding traffic and pass-through traffic, and that staff could not support policy language that commits a future City Council to funding improvements of an undetermined amount in some future year. The neighborhood (East Campus Committee) was equally adamant that the two identified traffic studies were critically important to the neighborhood. City and University staff agreed that these studies should be a high priority and further agreed to jointly recommend that they be considered as such by the Council. Having heard the Council discussion following the public hearing, East Campus Committee representatives will submit follow-up testimony revealing their reaction to that discussion. That testimony is included in Attachment C. 6. Do the impacts identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis result in a need for mitigation. How do we fund that mitigation? How do we rom developer accountable for impacts identified in a TIA ? StaffResponse: A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) review is required, by code (EC 9.8670) when one of the following conditions exists: 1. The development will generate 100 or more vehicle trips during the peak hour. 2. The increased traffic resulting from the development will contribute to traffic problems in the area based on current accident rates, traffic volumes or speeds that warrant action under the city's traffic calming program. 3. A traffic engineering analysis indicates that approval of the development will result in roadway levels of service in the vicinity of the development that do not meet adopted level of service standards. 4. For development sites that abut a street in Lane County's jurisdiction, a TIA review is required if the proposed development will generate or receive traffic by vehicles of heavy weight in their daily operation. City Council Agenda page 253 3 The TIA performed by Access Engineering for the University noted several capacity and operational deficiencies that would result at full build-out of the East Campus Lands under the build alternatives. Several mitigation measures at various intersections along Agate Street were discussed in the report, with follow-up discussion between the consultant and City staff. These measures were not deemed necessary until very near the end of the 20 year study period. Furthermore, the siting of a potential parking structure and the design of access/circulation to that structure would have an effect on the location and extent of recommended mitigation measures. The University has acknowledged their willingness to perform mitigation of impacts resulting from their development. However, the City cannot require the University, or any other developer to fund mitigation of traffic impacts for which they are not responsible. Transportation System Development Charges (SDC's) are often used to fund capacity improvement projects needed to mitigate impacts off-site which may only partially be the result of the new development. Where possible, the City offer's SDC credits to encourage a developer to add the work to any Privately Engineered Public Improvements (PEPI) they are being required to perform. The SDC credits can only be offered for work occurring on arterial or collector streets. Some larger projects that are needed with or without the new development are funded with Transportation SDC's through the City's Capital Improvement Program. If you have any questions, please call me at 682-5113 or via e-mail at: Allen. D.LOWE(~_~ci.eugene.oe.us. City Council Agenda page 254 4 ATTACHMENT C Written Testimony Submitted at Council Public Hearing City Council Agenda page 255 February 23, 2004 Eugene City Council c/o Allen Lowe City of Eugene Planning Division 99 West 10th Avenue Eugene, OR 97401 RE: The East Campus Lands Land Use Applications Amendments (MA 03-7, RA 03-5, CA 03-5) Dear Council Members: I am submitting the following on behalf of the Fairmount Neighborhood East Campus Committee. As both Co-Chair of the Fairmount Neighborhood Association ("FNA") and chair of the FNA East Campus Committee ("Committee"), I would like to extend my appreciation to city staff, university representatives, the planning commission, and fellow neighbors for all their efforts regarding this process. As we near the dose of this process, I am reminded of how far we have come and how far we must still go to achieve agreement. The comments provided here are intended to clarify remaining issues regarding the University's land use application. Mitigating the Impacts of Density: From a broad perspective, densification of land use within the city limits of Eugene to accommodate future development and population growth is a goal the FNA supports. However, nothing in life is free. As densification occurs, challenges will arise between development and neighborhoods as the City transforms itself. Change is not, by definition, a bad outcome. It is how the city guides the change that will determine the vitality of Eugene's future. Will it fail due to neglect or thrive through proactive management of land use changes within the City? Proactive management will require investment on behalf of the city to mitigate the impact of densification on residential neighborhoods and to protect the health and safety of its citizens. Traffic: One major area of mitigation is traffic. As the city enhances land use and density, more traffic conflict will occur as increasing automobile and pedestrian traffic compete for access to a geographically limited transportation system. MetroPlan policies require that the City mitigate the impact of increased density and funding will be required to implement traffic calming measures to protect neighborhoods. The alternative is sprawl, which will require more roads and more maintenance. Unless the city is willing to allocate funding for traffic mitigation, proposals to increase density should be rejected - otherwise the city is not following MetroPlan policies and transferring the impact of density directly on the immediate and surrounding · neighborhoodst. Applicable MetroPlan policies have been discussed by the Committee and are in the existing record. City Council Agenda page 257 FNA East Campus Committee Comments East Campus Lands Land Use Applications Amendments (MA 03-7, RA 03-5, CA 03-5) February 23, 2004 Investment in Traffic Calming Saves Money: Allocation of funds for Waffle calming in response to increased density actually saves money by: 1) Stabilizing property tax revenues: traffic calming mitigates helps prevent the deterioration of residential neighborhoods. This, in mm, maintains property values and property tax revenues for the city. 2) Avoided capital and maintenance costs associated with sprawl: In a growing city like Eugene, the alternative to densification is sprawl. Sprawl reiults in increased capital funding to expand the transportation system and associated long-term maintenance costs. Eugene's low System Development Charges result in new development not adequately contributing toward capital expenses associated with increasing size of the transportation system. 3) Increased Efficiency of city services: Traffic calming promotes livability. Livability attracts residents. More residents mean more property tax revenue per acre and more efficient use of city services such as fire and police protection. Traffic Mitigation is Pro-Development: Numerous MetroPlan policies address the importance of mitigating the impact of increased density and preserving existing neighborhoods. Without traffic mitigation the city cannot promote development and in-fill without conflicting with MetroPlan policies. Therefore, traffic mitigation goes hand-in-hand with enhancing Eugene's "open for business" outlook to support commercial activity, create jobs, and improve the community as a whole. Traffic Mitigation is Needed for the Fairmount Neighborhood: While traffic mitigation is a city-wide issue, the Fairmount Neighborhood specifically needs traffic mitigation due to its close proximity to the University of Oregon. The University of Oregon generates a substantial mount of vehicular and pedestrian that which places a strain in surrounding infrastructure. Like the neighborhood near the Lane County Fairgrounds, traffic mitigation is needed near large institutions. The University is a Blessing and a Burden: The City of Fairmount (now the Fairmount Neighborhood) was formed when the University held a few acres near Agate street. As the University has grown, the single-family neighborhood has embraced the cultural offerings the University provides while dealing with the burden of increased traffic and development. The University is an economic powerhouse and stimulates other aspects of Eugene's economy. However, unlike other residents, the University does not pay property taxes or pay for fire coverage which provide for the long term preservation and maintenance of the City's infrastructure and services. As the City embraces all the University has to offer, so to must the City step in and promote a long-term, harmonious relationship between the University and the Neighborhood through infxastmcmre improvements that promote University development while protecting the single-family neighborhood. Traffic Policies: Because of the importance of traffic mitigation, the FNA East Campus Committee proposes changes to traffic policies #6 and #7. Traffic policy #6 deals with addressing Agate Street which is characterized as "nearly dysfunctional" by city staff. In particular, the intersection of Franklin Boulevard and Agate Street is approaching failure according to state criteria. Traffic policy #7 deals with an area-wide traffic analysis on or before December 2008. These policies have consistently been of concern to the Committee and all parties involved in the process have been Page 2 of 5 City Council Agenda page 258 Fl,IA East Campus Committee Comments East Campus Lands Land Use Applications Amendments (MA 03-7, RA 03-5, CA 03-5) February 23, 2004 aware of our concern- and many share the concerns regarding traffic mitigation. We are presenting the proposed changes to you now because the record has been closed for the Planning Commission process, we wished to wait to see the outcome of the Planning Commission process, and we wanted to incorporate any concerns by City Council at the City Council work session. The following policy changes to traffic policies #6 and #7 attempt to address the neighborhood's requirement that studies be conducted and traffic calming be implemented within a known time frame while addressing the city council's concerns regarding securing funding for both the studies and any capital improvements required as an outcome of the studies. Changes from the current policies are in st~ and proposed changes are underlined. Traffic Circulation Policies 6. By March, 2005, the City shall initiate a study of Agate Street between Franklin Boulevard and 19th Avenue. That study, conducted jointly with the University and the Fairmount Neighborhood Association, shall identify strategies to improve the function and carrying capacity of Agate according to the City criteria for its designated street classification. The City shall :;'ill implement the necessary changes specified in Agate Street study by December 200& The University will participate in those improvements as development occurs and as required by City code, to the extent that the University is directly responsible for the needed improvements. Discussion: Change the word "will" to "shall" to make consistent with the phrasing of the entire document. The East Campus Committee has consistently raised the concern regarding the open-ended language regarding traffic mitigation. The implementation date is suggested to clarify the time frame for both the Agate Street study and any capital investment required as specified in the Agate Street study. 7. The City, with the cooperation of the University and the Fairmount Neighborhood Association, shall initiate an area-wide traffic calming study for the streets within the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study boundary to determine appropriate mitigation for through-traffic utilizing neighborhood streets. Such study shall :';c.'a!d be initiated prior to December, 2008, .~:~ , ..... :t~n:u,.. ~r ~.....to In the event that the City updates the Central Area Transportation Study (CA TS) prior to 2008, the City shall fund and initiate an area-wide traffic calming study as part of the CATS update to determine appropriate mitigation measures for the subject area. The CitF shall implement the changes specified in the area-wide traffic calming study by December 2012. Discussion: Change the word "would" to "shall" and delete the "subject to availability of funds". The East Campus Committee has consistently raised the concern regarding the open-ended language regarding traffic mitigation. The implementation date is suggested to clarify the time frame for both the area-wide traffic calming study and any capital investment required as specified in the area- wide traffic calming study. _ ,Page 3.of5 City ~ouncil ~genoa page 259 FNA East Campus Committee Comments East Campus Lands Land Use Applications Amendments (MA 03-7, RA 03-5, CA 03-5) February 23, 2004 I have discussed the proposed policy changes with Allen Lowe and he indicated that the neighborhood was being "very patient" with regard to the time-frame for implementing changes. While the neighborhood understands (and would prefer) that the changes could happen sooner rather than later, we also appreciate the City Council's concerns regarding securing funding and the neighborhood is willing to be patient with the City's traffic mitigation - as long as there is certainty that the traffic mitigation will occur in a reasonable time frame. We believe that the time frames described allow adequate time for the studies to be conducted and funds to be appropriated to meet the needs of the overall community. Process: The Committee removes its recommendation to insert a policy that would prohibit changes to the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study ("SAS") in the University-controlled area for a period of ten years. While the Committee continues to be concerned about land use changes, we are more concerned about funding for traffic mitigation at the present time. Further, based on the amount of time and effort required in this process and based on discussions with University staff we do not anticipate a proposed change to the SAS within ten years. We are requesting the removal of this process policy so that the City Council will dedicate more time toward finding solutions for traffic mitigation in its limited deliberation process. Lastly, with the city being proactive with traffic mitigation, many neighborhood needs are met and land use processes become less a concern. Conditional Uses: The buffer area (on the eastem and southem edge of the University-controlled East Campus Area) is of ongoing concern to the neighborhood. It is important to emphasize that the Fairmount Neighborhood Association's position is that n._qo conditional uses be allowed (voted on at a FNA general meeting last year in February 2003). It is also important to note that while we and others often refer to the conditional uses on the "west side of Villard", that the low density "buffer" area along the southern edge of the East Campus area is of equal importance. Upon further discussions with the City and the Univerisity, the FNA East Campus Committee came to appreciate the City's and University's concerns regarding a blanket prohibition on conditional uses - a prohibition on use could lead to deterioration of buildings and would not promote the "graceful edge" between the University and the single-family neighborhood. As a result (with one caveat), the FNA East Campus Committee approves of the recommended language proposed by the Planning Commission and the Committee believes it strikes the appropriate balance between granting the University some flexibility while promoting the preservation of the buffer area. The exception relates to the fact that the Committee proposed the language regarding the limitation of conditional uses based on the total number of existing lots in the buffer area. Should the University consolidate lots, there is the potential for the proposed limitation of a maximum of 7 conditional uses (5 maximum along Villard) to become meaningless (in theory). As lot sizes become larger, the potential for conditional uses to take over much of Villard (as an example) becomes a real concern as there may result in 5 lots with conditional uses on Villard with only a few lots remaining without any conditional use. Page 4 of 5 City Council Agenda page 260 FNA East Campus Committee Comments East Campus Lands Land Use Applications Amendments (MA 03-7, RA 03-5, CA 03-5) February 23, 2004 The conditional use criteria which requires that the conditional use be compatible with the single family neighborhood to the east and south of the development is therefore of great importance to the Committee. All other criteria and limitations are also important. The issue of lot consolidation has been an ongoing issue and likely is of no surprise to the parties involved in the process. The Planning Commission expressed concern as well. The Committee recommends that the record be clear that the intent of the policy is not to allow for large-scale conditional uses with lot consolidation. For clarity, and to avoid ambiguity, the Committee suggests adding a criterion under University of Oregon Lands Policy: East Campus Rate, policy 6 [new policy 6(g)] that states: (g) Conditional uses shall not exceed a total area of thirty-five thousand square feet within the entire University-owned Low Density Residential area. Thirty-five thousand square feet is the total square footage of 7 standard residential lot sizes of 50ft x 100ft. (7 x 50fi x 100ft = 35,000 square feet). The proposed language is for example only and the Committee is open to other language that achieves the intent. If the record is clear such that future review of conditional uses would prohibit large-scale conditional uses based on existing criteria, proposed policy 6(g) is not required. Proposed Changes By The University: In a letter from Teri Harding of Satre Associates (consultant to the University), Ms. Harding proposes four changes. There is a correction to an error in the ordinance (recognized by the city), two minor changes to the document, and one substantial policy change regarding the vacation of streets (Page 4, Policy #9). The university proposes to replace the use of the word "shall" with the word "should" or refer to city Code with regard to the requirement of demonstrating that a street vacation will not increase traffic volume on local neighborhood streets. The intent of the term "should" was originally agreed to by the Committee, city staff," and the University. The Committee accepts all proposed changes by the University in its February 13th letter. The approval process to vacate a street requires that the street vacation be for the good of the general public. The neighborhood preserves its right to request that a study demonstrate no increase in traffic volume on local neighborhood streets be conducted at the time an application to vacate a street is filed. It is expected that nothing in the University's proposed change would limit the city's ability to require a study at the time an application is filed. Respectfully Submitted, Jeff2qelson 2144 E. 15th Avenue Eugene, OR 97403 Pace 5 of 5 City Counci[A~enda page 261 Universify of'Oregon East Campus LandS Land-Use Applications · February 23, 2004 City Council Public Hearing Public Testimony ~7 Submitted by: Lorraine Davis, Vice President for Academic Affairs, University of Oregon, 207 Johnson Hall SAS 20 Years of History: 20 Years of Future Commitment: Mission The University of Oregon is in the business of education. It has always been known that the university would need to develop its east campus lands to meet its mission and commitment to the state. From the late 1950s through the mid-1960s, the university purchased these residential properties ·with the expectation of expanding into the area. Because immediate expansion did not occur, the university managed these blocks as residential property. The expected expansion had still not occurred by the 1980s when the uniVersity eStablished its first east campus development policy, which projected university uses for the next ten years (to 1991). ' Since that first policy 20 years ago, the East Campus Area has developed aCcording to the university's internal policies and the citY's Spedal Area Study..This has resulted in noticeable improvements to the area. Land Development The prefabricated war surplus buildings have been replaced by a series of high -quality buildings including the Musetun of Natural History, the Knight Law Center, the Vivian Olum Child Development Center,' and the upcoming Many Nations Longhouse, all carefully designed and placed in accordance with eStablished polities. In addition, the Bean parking lot was resurfaced and landscaped, and a new quadrangle was established. Many functions previOusly located in houses in the residential areas were relocated to central university locations as stated in Spedal Area Study policy. In addition, the university purchased the former Condon elementary school in 1989, refurbished the building and the play area, and established'a parking lot. In 1991, the Long Range Campus Development Plan was established. It reinforced the university's commitment to the Spedal Area Study and the university's East Campus policy. " In 2001, the university opened 72 units of ~raduate student housing on the last large, undeveloped parcel of PL-zoned land. And now, the new Children's Center at 17t~ and Moss Street has been built. City Council Agenda page 263 All of these actions were in accOrdance with the city's Special Area Study and the university's internal East Campus policy (which was designed to last for ten, not twenty, years). SommarY " In summary, we promised to develop in an orderly Way, and we have done so. Now we must prepare for the future. As stated earlier, the University of Oregon is in the business of education. It has always been known that 'the university would need to develop its east campus lands to meet its mission and commitment to the state. We ask you to adopt the land-use amendments as proposed to ensure the university can do so. Thank you. City Council Agenda page 264 University of Oregon East Campus Lands Land Use Applications February 23, 2004 City Council Public Hearing Public Testimony #5 Submitted by: Terri Harding, Satre Assodates 132 East BrOadway, Suite 536 Carefully Thought Out PropOsal; Restricted to University-owned ! Ands The proposal before you was submitted by the U of O and is purposefully restricted to lands within the approved campus boundary. However, because this process is legislative rather than quasi-judicial, we don't have a lot of time to present the proposals to you. With that in mind, I encourage you to review the Planning Commission record for a full history of the evolution of the proposal. There is a carefully thought out reason for every.proposal in the applications, and as the staff report points out, many of the proposals are the result of compromises reached during the mediation process. The Fairmount Neighbors Association (FNA) and the University of Oregon are in agreement on all of the major aspects of these land-use applications. We agree on .the proposed land use designation maps. That is significant. We agree on the three main policy changes to the Fah=mount/U of O Special Area Study. That is very significant. And we agree that, while outside the scope of these applications, it would be beneficial for the city to fund transportation studies in the Fairmount neighborhood. Conditional Uses in the R-1 Buffer It is important that the Council understand the university's position on conditional uses in the low-density residential area. This buffer was established as a compromise in response to the neighborhood's early concerns over intensification of use on university lands. Rather than allowing institutional use all the way to the campus boundary along Villard, a gradual transition was established within the university boundary. Elsewhere around campus, land uses transition from institutional on-campus to commercial or high-density residential off campus. During the 18-month process to establish an updated university policy, it was decided that a low-density buffer could be accommodated on university lands.. However, the university must retain the ability to apply for a restricted number of a limited type of conditional use permits; only 5 university office and similar support function uses could potentially be applied for along Villard Street, and these uses would have to comply with additional compatibility policies. The proposal requires preservation of the existing residential character even if a conditional use is requested. The factors of compatibility to be considered include building mass, building scale, historic architectural style, setbacks, building and City council Agenda page 265 entrance orientation, roof pitch, and mitigation of off-site impacts. The proposal . requires that a pOtential conditional use not generate more traffic than uses allowed outright in the zone and that adequate off-site parking be provided. None of the additional conditional-use restrictions apply to R-1 zoned lands across Villard or elsewhere in the city of Eugene. For these reasons, we ask you to approve the policy as proposed and as recommended unanimously by the Planning Commission (with the correction made by staff in your work session and described under comment #1 in my written testimony of February 13). It is the result of much discussion and compromise. We look forward to obtaining your approval for these plan and policy amendments, so that we can proceed with the zone-change applications, and the area may be redeveloped in accordance with the agreements reached through this process. Thank you. City Council Agenda page 266 University of Oregon East Campus Lands Land-Use Applications February 23, 2004 City Council Public Hearing Public Testimony #3 Submitted by: Christine'~Ilaompson, Planning Associate, University Planning Office, University of Oregon, 1276 University of Oregon Strategies: Graceful Transition The strategy proposed to create a graceful edge is the result of collaboration and creativity. The final proposal is quite different.from the university's original ideas. To start, we were interested in maintaining consistency with dty land-use patterns, so we looked at how other uniVersity edges are treated.' Typically university-owned lands,. those lands within the state-approved boundary, are Zoned PL and designated ' Gov/Educ as Supported by the Metro Area General Plan. Where university's lands meet residential areas, a higher-density residential zone outside university-owned lands serves as a transition area. We recognized from the beginning that the Fairmount Neighborhood edge at Villard Street is not necessarily like the other campus edges. Extending PL Out along the entire length of Villard Street would not likely be acceptable. At first, we looked at establishing a typical higher-density residentialbuffer within the campus boundary. We soon discovered; however, that this higher-density residential buffer was not appealing to the university or the neighbors because it did not preserve the single- family character of Villard Street, and it did not allow outright university uses or the flexibility required to establish the campus 'character'. The-Solution: COllaboration and Creative Ideas As a result, we created the proposal before you. It allows greater intensity and flexibility on the campus side while establishing greater limitations and restrictions along the Villard edge. Institutional: The Institutional area would be expanded to include lands dosest to 15~ Avenue and Agate Street. All university uses would be allowed. Low-density Residential: A low-density R-1 area adjacent to.the neighborhood would · serve as a buffer. High-density Residential/Limited Institutional: APL transition area provides · additional assurances that institutional development will not be detrimental to the residential character outside university boundaries. Numerous city regulations are already in place to address transitions to residential neighborhoods in such areas including: City Council Agenda page 267 Page setback, landscaping, and parking requirements, Site Review and Conditional Use requirements for certain institUtional uses adiacent to residential property, and Site Review where pUblic lands currently face the neighborhood (along the northern portion of Villard Street). We propose several additional measures in this' transition area in response .t° the neighborhood's requests including: limiting building heights to 45 feet (or 30 feet, which is 2-1/2 stories if within 60 feet · of the R-1 zone) prohibiting uses considered tO be incompatible with the neighborhood's character, and. expanding Site Review in requested areas. Combined, the existing and proposed city measures ensure a significant amount of city control where most effective and in a manner consistent with city policies. Thank you. City Council Agenda page 268 University of Oregon East Campus Lands Land-Use Applications February 23, 2004 City Coundl Public-Hearing .... Public Testimony fi2 Submitted by: Chris Ramey, University Planning Office Director and Architect, University of Oregon, 1276 University of Oregon IntroduCtion: Forty Years of Plannin~ The land-use applications before you come after an 18-month process to update the university's East Campus Development Policy, which is 'the university's internal policy governing use of its lands. While the proposed changes reflect the changing needs of the university since the adoption of the Fairmount Spedal Area Study (SAS) 20 years ago, the university has been planning for East Campus development for a much. longer time. Over 40 years ago the state-approved campus boundaries were established to allow for east campus development, and today the university Owns all but 8 of the lots. Planning Process: participation a Cornerstone · The prindple of participation is a cornerstone of the university's planning process. From the beginning of the East Campus planning process, we have worked very hard to ensure effective public participation from neighbors and the. campus community. This degree of partidpation was over and above the city's requirements. : Prior to submitting land use applications to the city, we engaged in an 18-month process that included: · . regular meetings with a Neighbors Advisory group, · two widely publicized, well-attended community open houses and workshops, ·numerous Neighborhood Assodation meetings, · a Campus Planning Committee public hearing and review, and · - five direct.mailings to neighbors. In total, staff arranged and/or attended over twenty public meetings and events. A complete description is provided in your background materials. Please note, this public partidpation process was not required by dty code. Following submittal of the applications, the City of Eugene' implemented its required notification and.input process. In addition, the dty coordinated a mediation process consisting of a series of meetings attended by dty staff, neighborhood representatives, and university representatives. 'This process offered a unique opportunity for public input beyond the dty's code requirements. Resulting Proposal: General Strategy Supportedby UO and Neighbors City. Council Agenda page 269 The bottom line is that the public input process Was very comprehensive, very effective, and changed and improved what we would have done on our own. The resulting proposal before you represents compromise by both the neighbors and the university that led t° new ideas and creative thinking. Over 30 re~,iSions and/or additions (some of them very significant) were made to the university's policy in direct response to neighbors' comments prior to submittal. An additional 19 revisions were made during the city's mediation process. The .Planning Commission's unanimous vote of approval signifies that these efforts were comprehensive and worthwhile. The university and neighbors agree on the overall strategy proposed to implement the proposal's main goal: to provide for the expansion of the institution, based on its needs, without diminishing the quality of the surrounding neighborhood. We listened carefully to neighbors and made sure we addressed the three primary issues: the campus edge, · traffic, and · parking, 'Others here tonight will provide some details about these. Thank you. City Council Agenda page 270 2 University of Oregon East Campus Lands Land-Use Applications February 23, 2004 City Council Public Hearing Public Testimony #1 Submitted by: Rich Linton, Vice President'for Research and Graduate Studies, University of Oregon, 207 Johnson Hall University. Mission: Expansion is Essential As chair of.the university's Space Committee, I am keenly aware that the university's space needs are substantial, yet available on-campus space is practically non-existent for a variety of necessary academic and support functions. These needs undoubtedly will continue to increase, despite significant on-campus development during the past 20 years. In fall 2002 the university reached an enrollment in excess of 20,000 students for the first time in its 125-year history. Since 1980 the university has added some 834,000 gross square feet of new space on the main campus. This brings the total developed space to 4.7 million gross square feet. This development provides classroom space for an enrollment of 20,000. However, it does not adequately provide for the related support facilities such as administrative and technical services, research space, and student housing. We have been lagging behind in meeting such needs on campus due to either budgetary or space limitations. Increasingly, faculty research programs and associated institutes or centers sUpported with federal grant dollars are being housed in off- campus locations. The limited lands available in the campus's academic core must be preserved for instructional facilities to enable students to reach their classes within the allocated ten- minute break. The main campus simply does not have room to accommodate both the projected instructional needs AND support services without adversely affecting the existing development pattern and preservation of open space. However, the support services must be located in close proximity to the central campus to: · preserve critical connections to both instructional and research activities, and · implement the university's policy of encouraging walking and biking. Using university lands in the East Campus Area is an obvious SOlution. We know of about 275,000 gross square feet that could be appropriately located there. As the university grows, these uses are projected to increase by an additional 325,000 gross square feet. It is essential that the proposed amendments be put into place now to allow the university to plan for its future needs, thus ensuring a strong and vital university for many years to come. Thank you. City Council Agenda page 271 University of Oregon East Campus Lands Land-Use ApplicatiOns February 23, 2004 City Council Public Hearing Public Testimony #4 Submitted by: Mike Weishar, Access Engineering 1410 Oak Street Minimize Traffic and Parking Impacts: Meet all Criteria As mentioned previously, one of the key tenets of the East Campus Development Policy is minimizing traffic and parking impacts in and through the Fairmount Neighborhood. My first task as a transportation consultant to the university for this project was to establish a baseline study. The data showed that since 1988, traffic volumes in the Fairmount neighborhood have slightly increased on Villard Street and Agate Street while the traffic volumes on Orchard and Walnut Streets have decreased. I evaluated three 20-year development scenarios for the East Campus Area in the 2002 East Campus Lands Trip Generation Study.' This study found that assuming worst case conditions and the most intensive development scenario, overall traffic levels in the area would increase by 11% compared to that generated by uses allowed in the current plan. Area streets have the capacity .to absorb this increase that would be spread over the 20-year development period. In response to a request from the city, I completed the East Campus Lands Traffic Impact Study, to address the requirements of the Transportation Planning Rule. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the impacts of likely development were able to be .mitigated. The study found that, indeed, the likelY impacts are able to be mitigated. Mitigation measures will be implemented as development projects move forward. The city has concurred with the findings of this study; the university's land-use applications meet the Transportation Planning Rule requirements. I also evaluated the effectiveness of the residential parking zone program instituted in accordance' with the 1982 SAS to discourage parking in the neighborhood. It demonstrates that the program has been very effective on participating streets. All of the related studies are provided in your background materials. Other Comments Beyond Application Requirements: Support Neighborhood-wide Traffic Studies While not required to find the current proposal in compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule or other approval criteria, the university agrees with the neighbors that transportation studies should be funded by the city to address the functionality of Agate Street and the potential for traffic calming on local streets in the Fairmount neighborhood. I encourage you to fund these important Studies as part of the city's overall transportation system planning. Thank you. City Council Agenda page 272 University of Oregon East Campus Lands Land-Use Applications February 23, 2004 City Council Public Hearing Public Testimony ~6 Submitted by: Jan Oliver, Associate Vice President of Institutional Affairs, University of Oregon, 111' Johnson Hall SAS 20 Years of History: 20 years of FUture Commitment: Longevity The university is committed to being a primary asset to the neighborhoOd and to the entire community. We have been part of the community for over 125 years and we intend 'to be here for another 125 years. This longevity guarantees that we .intend to hold to our word. Our commitment has been demonstrated by our efforts over the past 20 years. Traffic & Parking: Take, for example, our efforts to mitigate traffic and parking impacts in the adjacent Faix-mount neighborhood. In response to the 1982 Special Area Study, the.university created and adhered to a university-wide transportation plan, parking plan, and bicycle plan that resulted in an extraordinary array of traffic and parking management techniques including: · major capital investments towards bikeways and bike parking facilities, · major capital investments towards off-street autoparking, · free bus passes for all faculty~ staff, and students, · working with the city to establish an effective residential parking-zone program, · reorganizing the entire campus parking plan, and · severely reducing the number of overnight residence hall permits to ensure that off- street parking is available for daily campus use. The results demonstrate that the existing university and city policies are working well: The university is nationally recognized for its transportation innovation, · fewer than 40% o fall trips to and from the university are made by automobiles compared to 74% of trips made in the surrounding community, · the university is in compliance with all city parking-code requirements, and although the university has grown significantly over the past 20 years, traffic on Walnut'and Orchard Streets has decreased. The university will continue to actively support and improve Upon all of these efforts. We · will also continue to support city efforts that are beyond the university's jurisdiction or . responsibility, including the two proposed traffic studies. Summary. · The university must prepare for its future to maintain its commitment to being a primary asset to the neighborhood and to the entire community. The proposed amendments are the first step to ensuring that its lands are ready to meet essential future needs. If we do not act now, we will lose the chance to be proactive and thoughtful in our approach. Thank you. City Council Agenda page 273 LOWE Allen D From: LOWE Allen D Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 2:24 PM To: TORREY Jim D; TAYLOR Dennis M; ROSE Lynda L Cc: CARLSON Jim R Subject: UO Testimony on East Campus Ordinance This is a response to Jim Carlson's phone message asking for summary of UO request that you'll get at hearing tonight. UO submitted letter asking that 4 revisions be made to the adopting ordinance. 1. Remove the phrase "university-owned office uses and similar support functions" from the Conditional Use Policy on page 3, item 6(a), page 10 item 6(a), and page 26 item (f)(1) of the ordinance. NOTE: THIS CORRECTION HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE TO THE ORDINANCE IN THE COUNCIL PACKET. THEIR REQUEST IS UNNECESSARY. 2. Revise the ordinance text on page 5, iitem (e) to read as follows: "This Special Area Study contains select policies from the University of Oregon 2003 East Campus development policy, affecting land owned by the University. These policies are contained in the land use section of this Special Area Study. The university policies not adopted into this SAS will guide the University in its planning and decision making regarding public facilities and services in the east campus area." STAFF SUPPORTS THE SUGGESTED CHANGE. 3. Revise Ordinance on page 3, policy 8 by inserting a comma as follows: "In an effort to rmaintain the Fairmount Neighborhood's character, the University shall consider contributing ranked historic houses that must be moved from other areas within the state-approved University lands due to development plans for infill projects, or to replace a non- contributing house in the University-owned Low Density Residential area, if feasible." STAFF SUPPORTS THE SUGGESTED CHANGE. 4. Revise Ordinance on page 4, policy 9 by replacing the word "shall" with the word "should" as follows: "With the ~xception of alleys, vacations of streets within the state-approved University East Campus boundary should not be permitted, unless the applicant, at his or her expense, provides to the City a local street connection study that demonstrates how the proposed street system remaining after such vacation meets the intent of tEugene Code street connectivity provisions and that such vacation will not increase traffic volumes on local residential streets." STAFF SUPPORTS THE SUGGESTED CHANGE. UO letter can be seen on City Council Agenda pages 129 to 131. Allen L we City of Eugene Planning (541) 682-5113 City Council Agenda page 274 University of Oregon East Campus Applications City Council Heating February 23, 2004 7:30 p.m. Public Testimony Kristen Taylor 1808 Orchard Street Eugene, Oregon 97403 (541) 687-7902 Good Evening. On behalf of the Fairmount Neighborhood, I would like to thank the City and University Staff for the extra effort they extended to work with the neighborhood in~ seeking a beneficial outcome for allinvolve~d..ii \!x~;.~ ~-i.-c:~Y C(~-~:. ' i would like to ask Se residen~ t~t ~ve come nere tomgnt .... ~t ~ ~ , ~ I m s~c~c~ly going to ad.ess a ques~on asked by Nancy Na~anson dudng a work session regarding what other cities in ~e nation have done to address plying issues related to impac~ on neighborho~s adjacent to U~versities or large i~titufio~. , I c~led and spoke m Ci~ ~ng ~d T~s~tion En~neefing st~f from: Boulder, Colorado, Poaland, ~egon ~d Pasadena, C~ifoma about how ~eir cities address planning issues and impacts from their l~ge institutions on the su~un~ng residenti~ neigh~rh~ds. I have included ~e websites for these cities for your i~o~ation on ~s testimony. · h~://www.ci.boffider.co.u~pub~cwor~dept~m~fioff~ety/m~n~p.h~ ' h~P://www.~ffi~d~s~fion.or~pl~s/cc~p/~sffic~mte~es.htm After lengthy discussions with staff from all of these cities, they all had a similar message: ° proactive planning and mitigation of impacts is imperative in maintaining the quality and livability of o City Council Agenda page 275 Specifically, they highlighted the necessity of · financial investment, · clear and objective policies that guide future planning, and · proactive and effective mitigation of existing and projected impacts as a result of a large institutional use in a residential neighborhood. As I stated earlier, I live with my husband and five year old son one block east of the East Campus Area on Orchard Street. Five years ago we thoughtfully chose to buy our first house in the Fairmount Neighborhood because of its wonderful amenities and character. We know all of our neighbors and value our friendships with them. We can see ourselves living in our house for a long time, however, we, like many of our neighbors are particularly unsure of the future of our part of the neighborhood because of the direct impacts of University growth such as increased traffic that could easily diminish the quality and livability of our neighborhood resulting in disinvestment in the neighborhood. I want to see my son grow up in our house so I implore you to follow the footsteps of the cities that plan proactively to ensure the harmonious coexistence of a university adjacent to a single family residential neighborhood. City Council Agenda page 276 OUNIVERSITY OF OREGON February 12, 2004 Eugene City Council c/o Allen Lowe 99 West l0th Avenue Eugene, OR 97401 Dear Mayor Torrey and City Councilors: I write to you today to urge you to approve the proposal before you to amend the land-use documents to allow the University of Oregon to implement its Development Policy for the East Campus Area. The university provides educational opportunities for over 20,000 students each day. In addition, we are home to scores of researchers whose work is at the forefront of modern thought in important areas of scientific exploration. We also house two of the state's most prestigious museums whose offerings and research are recognized regionally. The university is the city's largest employer. Its faculty have created 13 new companies in the last 12 years, and, according to a recent study, it contributed over $700 million to the economy in the 2000-01 fiscal year. Having recently celebrated our 125-year anniversary, our campus now consists of over 4.6 million square feet of space on 295 acres of beautifully landscaped land. Forty years ago our predecessors began to assemble the land now within our eastern border, and, due to their foresight, we have been able to grow without the need for branch campuses. While looking back is exhilarating, it is important that we look ahead as well and plan wisely for the decades to come. We believe that the East Campus Area Plan allows the university to accommodate its future needs in a campus-like setting while allowing the residential areas that surround us to have a bright future as well. The implementation of the proposed amendments is essential to ensuring that the university will meet the current and future needs of its students, its researchers, and the public it serves. I hope you will support them. Sincerely, RECEIVED and ~rovosl John T. Moseley 202 Johnson Hall (54~) 346-3~86 Senior Vice President and Provost CITY OF EUGENE Academic Affairs OFFICE OF THE SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST PLANNING DEPA,RTMENT 207 Johnson Hall (541) 346-3081 1258 University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1258 F [541) 346-2023 www.uoregon,edu City Council Agenda page 277 Page 1 of 2 LOWE Allen D From: Fred and Sandra Austin [freda@efn.org] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 9:35 PM To: Allen D. Lowe Cc: 'Kristen and Trevor Taylor'; Jeff Nelson & Hannah Neet Subject: UO East Campus Plan Allen, Please enter these comments into the East Campus Plan record. Thank you. February 20, 2004 Eugene City Council CIO Alien D. Lowe, Planner To the Council, My wife and I are long time residents of the Fairmount Neighborhood. I am a member of the Fairmount Neighbors East Campus Planning Committee, and have actively supported the negotiations between the Fairmount Neighbors and the University regarding planning and development in the East Campus Area. We have greatly appreciated the assistance of the City of Eugene's Planning Staff in developing a mutually acceptable update of the U.of O/Fairmount Special Area Study. The Plan to be presented to the Council is the product of several years of negotiation between the Neighborhood and the University. With the City's help, we have ironed out most of the serious difficulties. But, now comes the hard part. While we are mostly in agreement about the issues of Traffic Mitigation throughout the residential neighborhood, funding for the studies and necessary capital improvements remains uncommitted. Surely the expenditure of funds to assure that the minor arterial, Agate Street functions as designed, and that the calming of family residential streets surrounding the approximately 35 acres of city center development the University is planning, is equally important to the expenditures for street and road improvements in the area of the new Federal Courthouse or the future Triad Corporation Hospital. We urge the Council to give high priority to the funding of East Campus Traffic Mitigation solutions. The other critical issue in East Campus Planning is the question of allowed Conditional Uses along the west side of Villard Street from 15th to 19th avenues. University planning documents refer to the proposed "R-1 Low density residential" area as "the graceful edge." The University argues that prohibiting Conditional Uses in this area is unfair because they would not be prohibited along the east side of Villard. I would say there is much less chance that Conditional Uses would be sought for the privately owned east side properties if the University maintains the graceful edge it proposes. I hope that the Council will support the Fairmount Neighbors Association, who are on record opposing any conditional uses in this special area. If in the future conditional uses are requested and allowed east of Villard, this question may be reconsidered by the City. We appreciate the difficulty of the process now before you, and wish you all wisdom in your deliberations and decisions. Thank you, Fred & Sandra Austin 1588 Fairmount Blvd. Eugene, Oregon 97403 City Council Agenda page 278 2/23/2004 Page 1 of 1 LOWE Allen D From: Weston [weston@uoneuro.uoregon.edu] S nt: Saturday, February 21,2004 6:36 PM To: allen.d.lowe@ci.eugene.or.us Subject: Traffic Considerations for Fairmount Neighborhood Dear Allen Lowe, As a 34 year resident of the 'Fairmount Neighborhood', I'd just like to underscore the quite limited access our neighborhood has when approaching from downtown. The Agate Street access is terribly congested when the University is in session because of the single lane between Franklin and 13th. With a Stop sign at 13th the traffic is sometimes backed up into Franklin Blvd. Furthermore, students crossing Agate between 13th and 15th have the right of way and often hold up traffic for extended minutes. This means the easiest access is either considerably east at Villard or considerably west at Patterson. There is nothing else in between. How far is that? I'd highly recommend a dedicated right turn lane off of Franklin on to Agate. I'd also request that you acknowlege this situation so that it might be mitigated rather than compounded. Thank you, Sally Weston 2595 Highland Drive 97403 City Council Agenda page 279 2/23/2004 LOWE Allen D From: Emilie Hooft [emilie@Katla.uoregon.edu] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 9:03 AM To: allen.d.lowe@ci.eugene.or.us Subject: Land use changes in the East Campus Area Dear Allen Lowe, I would like the following comments on the proposed land use changes in the East Campus Area to be put on the record. The fact that the university needs to increase their usage of their east campus areas is unavoidable. However, as a resident of the Fairmount Area this, of course, presents various concerns. The East Campus Committee of the Fairmount Neighbourhood Association has done a lot of excellent work to come to an agreement with the university to mitigate the impact of these developments on our neighbourhood. City recognition of these documents is important to ensure that the university acts according to these agreements. I have specific comments on the following two issues: 1. Traffic in our neigbourhood is of the most immediate concern. This issue is problematic as it requires funding to address traffic design issues and enforce traffic regulations. I strongly urge you to fund the necessary studies and any needed capital improvements as this factor greatly affects the livability of our area. 2. Usage of the university-held property along the west side of Villard is also a sensitive issue. These boundary properties determine the nature of the houses on the other side of the street and a smooth transition from the university to the neighbourhood is necessary. It is very important that the increased density associated the proposed modifications to land use be mitigated. with regards, Emilie Toomey Home: Emilie Toomey 1720 Fairmount Blvd. Eugene, OR 97403 541-338-4842 Work: Dr. Emilie E. E. Hooft Toomey Department of Geological Sciences University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403 phone: 541-346-4762 fax: 541-346-4692 email: emilie@newberry.uoregon.edu http://hydros.csi.uoregon.edu/~emilie/ 1 City Council Agenda page 280 Testimony, Eugene City Council Public Heating, 2/23//04 Page 1 of 2 LOWE Allen D From: Mary Ann Holser [mahols@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 10:02 AM To: allen.d.lowe@ci.eugene.or.us Subject: testimony E Campus Feb 23 04 Testimony, Eugene City Council Public Heating, 2/23//04 East Campus Plan Amendments As a former member of the University East Campus Neighborhood Advisory Committee, the Fairmount Neighbors Association and the East Campus subgroup of that body, I am in general agreement with the plan and its amendments as I have interpreted them. I would like to thank and praise these groups and the city planning staff and the members of the City Planning Committee on their hard work and due diligence in working with the city, the University, and the neighborhood to come to some consensus. My concern has always been the preservation of the historical and beautiful East Campus neighborhood as an asset to the city and the University, not to be lost to shoddy and incompatible development. However, a have a few concerns to express. The two recommended traffic studies must be prioritized by the city. Agate does not function as a minor arterial with 3 busy traffic stops and a dangerous student crossing next to the dormitories, causing through traffic to Franklin to use the adjacent neighborhood streets to enter and exit the University, which people coming from the south and east of the University must do. Bridge overpasses at 15th and the student dorm areas could look great and solve some of the problem! For foot traffic, they might cost less than many other total traffic reroute solutions. We could explore this. It could keep traffic off from the neighborhood streets. Funding for these projects could be a parmership between the city and the University. The $15,000 to do a traffic study can certainly be found in contingency funds of $300,000. The city managed to find $500,000 to again fund bringing another airline to Eugene, when past such efforts have not worked. Public Works has funding, secured by gas tax road monies and not affected by measure 30 or other State cutbacks. The University traffic problem should be reprioritized. The University is the major employer and attraction for economic development here. The city should support it. Another area of concern is the in the area of Conditional Use permits. Allowing the University to combine 3 tax lots for the purposes of one large institutional building that might not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood could present a problem. I recognize that the amended language regarding the number of CLIPs, compatibility and distance from adjacent residences of conditional use approved structures may limit the building of a big eyesore. However, the plan requires cooperation, sensitivity and goodwill between the University and its neighbors. In face of strong desires to develop, I would hope that this cooperation will happen; long range vision will prevail and the unique, historical and beautiful neighborhood preserved. In the section of preservation of the Fairmount Neighborhood' character (p.9, #8) the text suggests that ranked contributing houses in other areas of University lands that must be moved be considered for infill projects or replace a non-contributing house in the University owned low-density area. What would be an infill area? Anywhere in the city? Would some protection exist for residents of the non-contributing house? Would the historical review board continue to review as the houses age and styles become recognized as "historical." A good example is "craftsman" style home, which was not really considered of historical interest 25 years ago by many. City Council Agenda page 281 2/24/2004 Testimony, Eugene City Council Public Hearing, 2/23//04 Page 2 of 2 An apparently untouchable structure is the ugly box, once a church, now a storage unit for the University! Yes, storage is needed, but why in the middle of our neighborhood where outdoor space, or even a parking structure to keep parking off residential streets, could replace that eyesore. Demolish it. Vacant buildings exist all over the county for such space at the present time. Thanks again for all your efforts. Mary Ann Holser 2620 Cresta de Ruta Eugene, Or 97403 City Council Agenda page 282 2/24/2004 2288 Fairmount Blvd. Eugene, OR 97403 February 25, 2004 Dear Members of the City Council, We arrived at the February 23rd heating on the University of Oregon East Campus plan with hopeful hearts; we left feeling saddened and discouraged. The neighborhood's support of the huge increase in density that will occur as a result of the East Campus plan is DEPENDENT on the City's requirement that the university fund appropriate traffic mitigation and parking solutions that will guarantee the continued livability of our historic and beautiful neighborhood. At the February 23 meeting, we were congratulated heartily for the process that resulted in the plan before you. But, let us be perfectly clear: THIS WAS THE UNIVERSITY'S PLAN TO BEGIN WITH and the neighborhood was able to interject some "trimming" around the edges. In most cases this "trimming" concerned matters that followed standards of good planning principles to begin with. The only zoning issue that the neighborhood was passionate about (the continuation of no conditional use permits on the very narrow border orR-1 property, some of which directly abuts private R-1 homes to the south) has been greatly diluted. Please do not confuse the neighborhood compromises on increased density with enthusiasm; much of the neighborhood feels very "raw" from this process and very much marginalized. The University of Oregon is, like Peace Health was, and any other large business is, a DEVELOPER and should have the responsibilities of a developer. A housing development is cun'ently being built on Moon Mountain in Eugene and BEFORE these lots were sold and one drop of concrete was poured, the developer was required to install proper roads and infrastructure that will accommodate increased traffic. When the arena was under active discussion, the University always put off the discussion of a proper parking structure until "later." The University wants to be able to make plans; however, the neighbors also need to have assurances IN WRITING that our livability standards will not be eroded. "Later" too easily becomes "never." We respectfully request that the City fund the Agate Street and Fairmount Neighborhood traffic calming study, make the Fairmount Neighborhood traffic issues a top priority (we are the neighborhood facing massive internal development), and REQUIRE the University to implement and pay for traffic mitigation and parking solutions in the Fairmount Neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Dr. Christina M. Holzapfel Dr. William E. Bradshaw City Council Agenda page 283 March 1, 2004 l~tl?~' .:, ~P(iviIi Eugene Cound] 0 1 c/o ~len ~we City of Eugene Pl~ng Division ~ West l~h Avenue RECEIVED Eugene, OR 97~1 ~: The ~st Cmpus ~ds ~d Use Applimfions (MA 03-7, ~ 03-5, CA 03-5) De~ Ci~ Council Mem~rs: This letter ~d a~chments ~e submitted on beh~f of the F~ount Neigh~rh~d Ass~iafion ~st Cmpus Com~tt~ ("Com~ttee"). There ~e t~ee attachments included: A~chment A: The ~pact of UO's h~emen~ Development; Attachment B: ~o~sed City Council Action I~ms; Attachment C: Cl~fion; ~d A~chment D: Funding Rese~ch. U~n consideration of ~e record to date, ~e Com~ a~pts ~L ~licies r~ommend~ by the Pl~ffing Commission in ~eir ofigin~ fo~, including the ~fic ~licies. ~e Com~Ree r~uests · at ~e City Council consider the testimony provided at the Febm~ ~rd public h~ng reg~ding adding supplemen~ l~gmge in ~e CUP ~licy to ensue that l~ge sc~e conditionM uses ~e prohibited in ~e R-1 b~fer ~. (See the Comittee's written testimony ~d refer to Trevor Taylor's verbal testimony). Therefore, from the Committ~'s ~rs~five, t~ issues mmMn befo~ ~e Co~cil: Funding ~e Agate S~t ~d Area-Wide T~fic ~ng studies (note ~at as stated in ~e propos~ ~c ~licy 87, ~e ~und~ of the ~-Wide T~fic C~ming Study is limit~ to · e streets wi~n fie FMmo~t~versi~ of Oregon Sp~iM Arm Study ~un~); · M~ng a fom~ ~m~ent now to review the outcome of ~e sm~es ~d problem solve the ass~iated implementation ~d f~ng solutions ~ter ~e stu~es are ~mpleted; ~d · Addressing ~e ~n~m of l~ge-sc~e ~n~fion~ uses in ~e R-1 b~er ~ea. ~e Com~ ~lieves ~t it is cfifi~ fiat ~e Agate S~et ~d ~ea-Wide T~fic C~ming studies ~ f~ded by ~e City Co~cil now so that ~figafion smtegies ~d f~ng solutions ~ ~ iden~ed ~ter ~e ~mpletion of ~e sm~es to su~sffully address the t~c impacts ~ a reset of · e UO's pro~s~ inc~s~ development in ~e ~t ~mpus ~. The Com~R~ is not requesting at ~is time that ~e Council f~d ~e implementation of ~e ~figafion measures identified by these stu~es. The con~ssions ~de by the Com~ee ~d the ~A's overall a~epm~ of the UO's propos~ ~st Cmpus l~d use applimfions ~e ~nfingem u~n ~e funding of the t~c sm~es ~d ~m~ent to ~view ~e out,me of the studies ~d problem solve ~e ass~iat~ implementation ~d funding solutions ~ter the sm~es ~e completed. The Coffee's go~ has ~n to c~te a win-win-win mlufion: The ci~ ge~ densi~, ~e University gets in~eas~ pm~y vMue ~d flexibility, ~d the Ffi~ount Neigh~rh~ is pmse~ed by ~figating the impacts from ~e development, induing ~fic mifgafion. Win-win-lose is not acceptable. Assu~ng ~e approval of ~e Pl~ing Com~sfion's policies, f~fing for the two t~c stu~es ~d · e ~i~ent to problem solving the ass~iated implementation ~d fun~ng solutions ~ter ~e sm~es ~e ~mpleted, ~e ~A sup~as the approval of the University's applimfion. However, despite ~e time ~d effo~ put into ~is pr~ess, without funding for ~e ~o t~fic studies and a ~m~ent to problem solving, the ~A opuses the appli~fion and ~lieves it should be deffi~. . ~ste~Ta~ [ Fa~um ~i~h~d Co-Char F~ount ~st C~pus Co~uee Char 1808 Orchid S~eet Fairmount East Campus Committee Application File # MA 03-7, RA 03-5, CA 03-5 City Council Agenda page 284 Attachment A The Impact Of UO's Incremental Development .Typi.'ca~.ly, proposed large-scale developments such as a basketball arena, a hospital, or other large tnst~tutional developments are constructed soon after the approval of a required land use application ~ building permit. Additionally, typically proposed large-scale developments trigger the requirement to implement and fund mitigation measures to address the development impacts on the surrounding area and transportation system as a condition of approval. General University development is different. The University's East Campus development will occur incrementally over many years as specific development needs are matched with available funding. Therefore, although the Eugene code might require a TIA to be performed by the UO, it is unlikely that a small-scale development will trigger the need to implement mitigation measures as a result of the single development because of the relatively small impact. Additionally, the Eugene code does not address the impact of incremental small-scale development over time by the same developer. The code only recognizes the current development application and the associated impacts of that individual development. Therein lies the problem. Tlie proposed UO's East Campus applications provide a broad blueprint of allow~ible development in the East Campus Area, If tiffs application is approved, the UO plans on expanding their current least Campus Area by about 600,000~ square feet. Consequently, While fUll build-out of the East Campus Area .wilt result in' the equivalence of a .very large-scale development, which' wilt have significant cumulative impact.on the neighborhood, there is no current mechanism to address the UO's incremental development approach. Therefore, the Committee believes that in order to mitigate the impacts of incremental development in the East Campus Area it is critical to address mitigation and the preservation of the Iivability of the neighbor, h, oo~, pr~a~ctively through a combination of the adoption of effective land use policies proposea'oy me tnanning Commission and the funding of the Agate Street and Area-Wide Traffic studies. After the studies are completed and the solutions are dearly defined, the City and UO will be better able to determine the longer term funding sources to successfully implement the identified mitigation measures. In addition, the Committee strongly recommends that the Council make a formal commitment now to review the outcome of the studies and problem solve the associated implementation and funding solutions after the studies are completed so there is a clear road map to implementing the mitigation measures (reference Attaclunent B). Note: as stated in the proposed traffic policy #7, the boundary of the Area-Wide Traffic Calming Study is limited to the streets within the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study boundary. In addition, in the case that City Staff can not present a definitive cost for the studies at the time of the decision and the City Council is hesitant to approve funding of the studies without a defined cost, the Committee recommends that the Council determine a maximum/not to exceed cost for the studies in order to avoid the inability to approve the studies based on the lack of information. ~ Reference Rich Linton's public testimony from the February 23, 2004 public hearing for the exact figures. Fairmount East Campus Committee March L 2004 Application File # MA 03-7, RA 03-5, CA 03-5 Attachment A City Council Acjenda pacje 285 Attachment B Proposed City Council Action Items As stated in Attachment A, the Fairmount East Campus Committee (Committee) thinks that it is critical that the Ag. ate Street and Area-Wide Traffic Calming studies be funded now in order to: · gmn a comprehensive and explicit understanding of the traffic problems; · determine the necessary implementation measures essential to mitigate the impacts on the neighborhood as a result of increased UO development in the East Campus Area; · proactively address the UO's incremental development approach; and · figure out how mitigation measures will be funded after the studies are completed. Therefore, at this time, the Committee proposes that the City Conner take action to fund the Agate Street and Area-Wide Traffic Calming studies. The Committee would like to present an innovative approach to address the funding issue related to implementing the mitigation measures identified in the studies. After the studies are completed and we have a better idea of the needed improvements required to address traffic impacts on the neighborhood, the Committee urges City Council and City Staff to seriously encourage a City Council initiated Local Improvement District (LID) to be approved in order to fund the identified improvements. The general sentiment of the homeowners between Agate and Falrmount Boulevard is that we are ready to help fund.the traffic solutions in our neighborhood as long as the UO and City are willin~ to step forward .ano ta?e meir part in the financing. This goes without saying that the neighborhood is willing to be a part of .me solution if the traffic problems are not the direct result of specific development proposals. If, for instance, specific UO development activities directly result in traffic impacts and the degradation of the transportation system in our neighborhood, the UO is responsible for funding the improvements needed to mitigate those impacts. The reason why the Committee thinks that it is critical that the City Council initiate the LID is because the UO East Campus Area will be included within the LID, which results in the UO having voting dominance if the property owners initiate the LID. In this case, the UO's vote alone could prevent the approval of the LID. .Consequently, the Committee urges City Council and City Staff to seriously encourage a LID to be approved m order to fund the identified improvements and give the neighbors the assurance that traffic impacts will be successfully mitigated. The Committee believes that the total cost across the neighborhood to implement comprehensive traffic calming solutions and fix Agate Street will cost less than the typical application of a LID, which entails bringing a substandard street up to current street standards. The Committee also believes that the distribution of this total cost will not significantly impact the individual homeowners. In addition, the Committee understands that in order to formally recognize planning and implementation projects that these projects need to be identified in Capital Improvement Plans or other plans like TransPlan. Therefore, after the studies are completed, the Committee urges City Council and City Staff to incorporate the implementation projects identified in the studies into the necessary City plans, In conclusion, the Committee expects that if the City Council approves the UO's East Campus application that the City Council will fund the needed traffic studies and give us the assuran~ that the traffic impacts due to the UO's East Campus development will be revisited and addressed once the studies are completed as suggested above. The Committee proposed City Council action items: 1. Approve the Planning Commission's recommended policies~. 2. Fund the Agate Street and Area-Wide Traffic Calming studies. 3, Make a formal commi~anent now to review the outcome of the studies and problem solve th associated implementation and funding solutions after the studies are completed. ~ As noted in the cover letter, the Committee would like City Council to verify that the policy regarding CUP's in the R-1 buffer area clearly addresses U~e lot sizes allowed in a CUP application so it is corn~rible with the single family residential character. Fairmount East Campus Committee March 1, 2004 Application File # MA 05-7, RA 03-5, CA 03-5 Altachment B City Cottn¢il A§enda Pa0e 256 Attachment C Ciarific tion  e.Fairmount East Campus Committee (Committee) .,w_ould like to clarify that we are not asking to elevated ahead of other neighborhoods on the City s traffic calming list. The City's traffic calming list is related to current traffic conditions. While on the contrary, the UO is reques6ng an ap..proval by City Council inv. olving a future development action. ConSequently, the Committee is asking that the traffic impact~ as a result of this future development action be mitigated. t In this process, the City, Planning Commission, and UO TIA recognize that there will be traffic impacts on the neighborhood as a result of the proposed future development in the East Campus Area (most significantly on Agate, Villard. Orchard and Walnut Streets and 19th Avenue, which are all interdependent due to their connection to Franklin Boulevard (with the exception of 19th Street)). The "decrease" of traffic on Orchard and Walnut Streets as mentioned out of context by the UO's traffic engineer at the City Council Public Hearing has been explained in detail in the UO's TIA and testimony submitted by both the FNA and City Staff. The Committee advises that this piece of information should not be taken out of context because it is misleading and does not represent the identif, xl current and future traffic problems on these two local streets, particularly in relation to their interdependence with Agate and Villard Streets. Fatrmount East Campus Committee March 1, 2004 Application File # MA 03-7, RA 03-5, CA 03-5 Attachment C City Council Agenda page 287 Attachment D Funding Research After the February Z3rd public heating, the Committee took another look at potential funding sources. We explored dedicating Syste~ Development Charges (SDC) and were discouraged to find that while the University does pay SDCs ,, this SDC revenue does not flow directly back to the neighborhood. Similarly, we looked at the University's portion of In-Lieu of Tax (ILOT) Payments, which EWEB pays to the City. According to Josh Rudick (Utilities Analyst at the UO), the university pays $2.245 million per year to EWEB for its Eugene facilities. EWEB pays 6% of its revenues to the city for ILOT. Six percent of $2.245 million is $134,700 per year. These and other funding sources currently go into either the City's general fund or other city-wide funds. There are currently no existing funding sources that can be used specifically for mitigation of traffic impacts in the Fairmount Neighborhood. As a result, current mechanisms are inadequate to implement and fund the measures needed to mitigate the impact of development in the Fairmount Neighborhood. This is yet another reason why it is critical that the City Council approve the funding of the two studies now so that the problems and solutions are dearly defined. Then after the study is completed, the City will be better able to determine the longer term funding sources to successfully implement the identified mitigation measures (reference Attachment B for a possible innovative solution to the funding problem of implementing the needed mitigation measures). ~ Reference the UO's written testimony after the February 23, 2004 public hearing regarding the SDC mounts that they have paid for various UO projects. Fairmount East Campus Committee March 1, 2004 Application File # MA 03-7, RA 03-5, CA 03-5 Attachment D City Council Agenda page 288 Attachment D The fo/lowing potential counter measures can reduce GRADE SEPARATION ..roblerns encountered by, pedestrians at busy intersections: " Grade separation allows one mode to pass over another, a · Improving law enforcement pedestrian under the automobile with an underpass or over · Improving driver and pedestrian education an automobile with a bridge~ Though grade separations in- · Clarifying pedestrian and driver actions with .traffic crease pedestrian.safety, convincing people to use them is control devices difficult. There is usually time loss and extra physical effort, · Improving pedestrian signal messages, colors, and so people seeking the shortest route may chance a more dangerous ongrade crossing. Barriers can be installed to displays reduce ongrade crossing, but their.installation would sug- · Improving signal timing · Improving crosswalk applications gest an error in judgment in the design of the road and over/ · Shielding vehicle and pedestrian signals underpass' · Improving visibility through lighting, etc. · Providing far-side bus stops Overpass. Extensive pedestrian bridge development may · Increasing driver and pedestrian sight distances, cause pedestrians to abandon the street below, and lower · (Urban Intersection Improvements for Pedestrian Safety that street's qualiW. The street may become more hazar, DOT-FH-11-8533, December 1977) dous and unpleasant to those forced to walk there and the increased auto orientation may pervade the street beyond ! ~ where the bridges end. Pedestrians are effective agents in requiring that streets be pleasant, and should not be removed . '..' from this advocacy position. / To be sure, there are isolated urban developments with extensive second level pedestrian plazas, GOlden Gateway  in San Francisco, the Barbican in London and Nicollette Mall in Minneapolis, as examples. New large-scale develop- .. ' i merits can often include grade-separated pedestrian cross- ..~ '-' ~ . ings at cost lower than on~jrade crossing when calculated over the project's life. There are two reasons for lower long-term costs. First, new construction is less expensive than remodeling. Second, long-term cost/benefits to drivers 0~ and pedestrians may outweigh the initial construction cost if the time saved by drivers not having to wait for crossing pedestrians, or the cost of installing signals at a later date, Open views of pedestrians at busy street crossings, or intangible benefits to pedestrians of not being harassed at a busy intersection are included. CONTROLLED CROSSINGS A signalized crossing becomes advantageous to vehicular traffic when pedestrian flows reach about 700 per hour. At this pedestrian density, a signal will delay both pedes- trian and vehicles, but vehicles will be delayed a shorter time than with intermittent pedestrian crossings. Inter- sections requiring signals are usually problem crossings with heavy, fast moving traffic or unusual configurations, and ENERGY EXPENDITURES are difficult to make completely safe. It takes approximately six times the amount of human Most pedestrian crossings are designed to favor the auto- energy to use an underpass as to walk directly across the mobile, forcing walkers to wait for a chance to cross. This street on-grade. It takes approximately nine times the is true even of self-activated .pedestrian crossing .signals. amount of human energy to walk up and over an overpass · Once the button is pushed, a time<lelay mechanism is set as it does to cross the same street on-grade. Crossing over- into motion which eventually stops auto traffic. Pedestrians head requires more energy as the overpass has more head- room requirements than an underpass, therefore, there are usually prefer no more than a 20~econd delay. Any longer more steps to climb up and down. delay increases frustration and may prompt some pedes- trians to cross against the red light. 3? City Council Agenda page 289 If a bridge can't be sited so users reach it without climb- U~tderpass. Most pedestrian underpasses are expensive fail- ing stairs, it should probably not be constructed. Bridges ° ures. The young find crossing the street faster (and perhaps connecting two major buildings, where users climb as p.art more challenging), while the elderly are unable to walk of the normal route (as a ramp leading past shops) or where easily up and down the stairs. Perceived dangers often keep natural elevations allow users to reach it without .cli~bihg people from using pedestrian underpasses which are usually stairs, may offer pedestrian advantages. (See sketch) too long, too narrow, poorly lit and maintained, infrequently To date, no inexpensive pedestrian overpass has been policed, and have poor site lines. They have a reputation devised. An overpass requires two feet of structure and (often true) of attracting petty criminals and vandals. To should have a 15-foot truck clearance. To use the overpass, extend underpass usage, they should be well lit, wide and pedestrians must walk up and down 35 steps or travel two visible from nearby active areas and policed regularly. Any ramps, each about 210 feet long (eight percent grade, Plus invisible areas should be TV-monitored to increase the per- level rest areas). If possible, it is best to select a swale or ceived safety and reduce the actual danger. Underpasses Iow point for cars, build ramps and let pedestrians flow should be avoided unless: naturally over the top. (See sketch). 1. The street they pass under is so busy that crossing is absolutely impossible. Even with these conditions, barriers on both sides may be necessary to physically prevent, people from crossing. Underpasses should be at least 12 feet wide, well lit, preferably with daylight ~' visible throughout, no longer than the road width with- out parking, and dean. ed regularly. Following con- struction of ma.ny stair-accessed underpasses, Munich, Germany has decided not to build more unless they include ramps for wheelchairs and bicyclists. But, ramps consume considerable room, at least 145 lineal feet for a ten-foot deep underpass (eight feet of tunnel height plus two feet of structure). Some layouts are shown. 2. Access to an underpass can be graciously ramped into the tunnel so it doesn't feel like a detour. New, planned communities are able to allocate sufficient land, while built-up communities usually can't find the necessary sp;ice. Skybridgel decrease needed pedestrian activity at the street level and ~hould be avoided unle~ the street is unsafe. 38 City Council Agenda page 290 For most crossings, an eight-foot high underpass with two feet of overhead structure is necessary. At ten feet of depth, about 20 steps or a 145-foot long ramp for wheel- chair access is necessary at each end. The road may be raised slightly to reduce ramp and stair length. Trench drains are necessary at the end of each ramp to collect runoff. Grade entrances to underpasses at a maximum of 8%. Provide level rest areas at ~ 30" of elemtion ch~n~e. Ideally, a ~mil~ould be included to aid un~ad~ ~lker~. ~ ~ord of ~ution: It is eas~ to ~come enamored with ~destrian/auto separation, and to a,~ume man~ crossings must have mmplete separation. In principle, this might ~eem ideal, but cost, existin~ site configurations and the relatNe ease of crossin~ man~ ~reet~ u~uall~ prohibit it. Grade ~eparation i~ spa~ con~umin~ and more difficult and ~lower for pedestrians than on~r~de street cro~in~s. Separ- ation ~hould be considered for special site~ including: 1 } those that force children to cross a bus~ street to reach 2} tho~e that force mang people to cro~ a bus~ stroet to ~nd~r~ ,hould b~ ~ide, ~ith a ~entle ,Io~ {pr,~mbl~ under rsach mmmercial, transpo~ation or rocrsational fi~), and ~ith ~ el~r ~ to the other ,ide. ~e~ ma~ ~ th, mamn ~nters: ~r er,~infl a b~lo~e ~rian ~la2a ~here eiw noi~ ar~ 3} malor extension, of the communit~ o~n-space ~stem; mu~l~. 4} areas where there are large volumes of automobile traf- fic and large numbers of pedestrians. 3. The underpass can be ~mbined with ~hoppin~ or other public facilitie~ that make the walk-through pleasant. The~e underp~e~ need to bo large and connected with transit or ma~or Parkin~ to ~uarantee ~ufficient users. studied ~o assure that busines,es will ha~e enough ~sto- mers to be ~ble. ~ large number of user~ ~n al~o fir~e Crowings. Free cro~in~ i~ residontial area~, ~des- allow for installation of escalators and an elevator for trian-odented business di~tdcm ~nd small scale downtown ae~ss bg ha~dimp~d and elderl~ potions. Thi~ tgpe areas would allow legal p~de~tr~ crossings be~een inter- underpa~s ~hould ~xtend as ~r ~ possible, should ~ections. lhis would mli~ con~e~tion at inter~ections ha~e exiB leadi~ to eve~ adjacent street and should and would allow a ~tron~er ~destrian orientation to the connect to the basements of nearb~ stores toencoura~e street. ~rNers, and ~destrian~ a~ wel. I, would have to be cro~s-usa~e, on ~uard to avoid accident~. City Council Agenda page 291 39