Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/28/1986 Meeting e e e ---. M I NUT E S City Council Dinner/Work Session Eugene Hilton Hotel--Studio A April 28, 1986 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Brian Obie, Mayor: Richard Hansen, Freeman Holmer, Debra Ehrman, Jeff Miller, Roger Rutan, Ruth Bascom, Emily Schue, councilors; Mike Gleason, City Manager; Susan Brody, Tim Sercombe, Barb Bellamy, Dave Whitlow, Pat Decker, Steve Gordon, Bob Hibschman, Cindy Pappas, staff; Jim Boyd, The Register-Guard. The work session was called to order by the Mayor at 5:30 p.m. I. RIVERFRONT PARK SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS Ms. Decker reported that the Planning Commission has forwarded its recom- mendation regarding Riverfront Park to the City Council. The Riverfront Park study was adopted by the City Council in September 1985. In October, an appeal was filed to the Land Use Board of Appeals by a group of citizens which identified eight errors in process or substance. The City was upheld by the Land Use Board of Appeals in seven of the eight areas appealed. In the eighth area, they asked the City to adopt additional findings and explain why a portion of the area is designated parks and open space, but not included in the Goal Five inventory. Goal Five deals with natural resources and open space. As part of the Metropolitan Plan, an inventory of Goal Five resources was developed, according to Ms. Decker. When this was done, it was determined that there was no need for additional parkland or open space at that time. Subsequently, a Master plan was adopted by the City Council, and in that process, other sites were considered for potential park development. The area in question did not meet any of the 12 criteria established in that report. Ms. Decker explained that there were two issues being considered at the public hearing tonight, and that they are fairly narrow: 1. LUBA has asked for an explanation for the City's distinction between listing a property as green on the Master Plan diagram, and listing that property on the Goal Five inventory. Approximately 26 addi- tional findings are included in the material prepared for this public hearing. Part of the reason that the Riverfront Park area is designated as green on the Master plan diagram is that the green areas indicate the Willamette Greenway in the metropolitan area; the area is not on the City's open space inventory. MINUTES--City Council Dinner/Work Session Apri 1 28, 1986 Page 1 e e . 2. Some testimony at the hearing will question the relationship between the process followed by the City of Eugene and the process followed by the University of Oregon when it developed the North Campus Plan. This plan designated a portion of the area in question for open space and a portion for research. The University is in the process now of amending the North Campus Plan. Ms. Decker told the council that there may be testimony on broader issues about the Riverfront Park project as well as on the issues identified here. She introduced Mr. Sercombe, in order to explain the process by which testimony may be heard. Ms. Ehrman asked if the City Council adopted the North Campus Plan, and Ms. Decker said no: some city staff participated in the development of the plan, but dealt with it in terms of the University's needs, not the needs of the City of Eugene. Ms. Bascom asked about the update of the North Campus Plan, and Ms. Decker replied that a Riverfront Subcommittee has been identified for updating the plan but need information from the developers of the Riverfront Park before decisions can be made. Mr. Sercombe clarified the legal ramifications of Goal Five, which requires the City Council to look at the entire jurisdiction during the comprehensive planning process, and to identify a list of resources which are significant or valuable. This process safeguards areas which need protection by providing an inventory or list which meets certain criteria. If development is planned for any of the sites on this inventory, a type of environmental impact statement is required. Mr. Sercombe explained that Mr. Urquhart will provide testimony that the riverfront site is significant and needs to be put on the Goal Five inventory. He also said that LUBA will ask why the site was not put on the list in the past. The City staff will not recommend that it be put on the list because the study did not find the site meritorious. Mr. Sercombe advised the City Council that they may adopt the findings of the staff, or decide that it does need to be open space and direct staff to do the environmental analysis in order to present more findings; the council could fail to enact the plan, regardless of the consequences. Mayor Obie referred to materials distributed to the council members and Ms. Decker replied that the report readopts the initial findings about the Riverfront Park Study. Ms. Ehrman asked if testimony in general opposition to the plan would be accepted at the hearing and Mr. Sercombe replied that the Mayor can explain to the citizens that this type of general testimony will be disregarded, but accepted. Ms. Ehrman asked how long it would take to expedite the plan once a decision is made. Mr. Sercombe replied that if tonight's decision is appealed, it will go first to LUBA and then to the L-COG Board of Directors, probably taking four or five months. At the same time, the City is appealing the previous decision of the court of appeals; a decision on that appeal is due in July 1986. Ms. Ehrman asked for a status report on the Riverfront Park. Ms. Brody MINUTES--City Council Dinner/Work Session April 28, 1986 Page 2 e replied that the Riverfront Park Commission is proceeding with the selection of a developer, and will make a decision within a few weeks. The City will negotiate a pre-development agreement with the developer after the decision is made. The project plans will proceed during the appeals process. Mr. Gleason added that the University has appointed a Research Advisory Committee to help identify potential markets for businesses in the park. II. RIVER ROAD/SANTA CLARA URBAN FACILITIES PLAN Ms. Decker advised the councilors that their packets contain the reV1Slons to the three elements of the River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan which they will be asked to approve tonight. Those three elements are transpor- tation, public facilities and services, and environmental design. They have been approved by the Springfield City Council and will come before the Lane County Board of Commissioners on May 21,1986. After approval, the staff will incorporate these three elements with the other two elements, which have already been approved, and come back with the complete plan to the City Council. Mr. Gleason referred to the Metropolitan Sewer Project in east Multnomah County; the DEQ has ordered the project to be implemented, forcing the City of Portland to impose a $365 million debt on the district. III. AIRPORT SUBCOMMITTEE e Mr. Rutan reported that an intergovernmental committee was appointed to consider funding options for the airport project; the appointees were John Ball and Chuck Ivey from Lane County, Chris Larson and Rick Gorman from Springfield, and Richard Hansen and Roger Rutan from Eugene. The outcome of that joint committee's findings was: 1. It was agreed by the intergovernmental representatives that the proposed design of the airport was appropriate. After reviewing and analyzing the design, there was unanimous consent to the design proposal. 2. Representation on the Airport Commission was discussed at length and it was generally agreed that the airport was operated very well. It was generally accepted that a broader representation on the commis- sion from the other jurisdictions would be desirable. 3. All the possible funding alternatives were presented and discussed. The initial consensus favored some kind of serial levy within a defined period of time and specifically dedicated to the airport project. Lane County road funds were also discussed, as well as the possibility of a toll booth. e MINUTES--City Council Dinner/Work Session April 28, 1986 Page 3 e e e Mr. Rutan reported that the subcommittee considered the report of the Chamber of Commerce Joint Committee, which contained many parallels to the findings of the Intergovernmental Committee. However, because the Chamber did not believe a county-wide measure would be a reliable source of funding, it recommended a bond measure within the confines of the City of Eugene. The Springfield City Council discussed the issue, according to Mr. Rutan, and there was less than unanimous support for the airport project. Because the subcommittee felt it had no business trying to sell a money-raising measure to representatives of the City of Springfield, who donlt totally support the idea, the subcommittee of Eugene councilors decided to go ahead on its own. Mr. Rutan announced that the subcommittee will meet on Monday, May 5, 1986, at 7 a.m. in the McNutt Room. The objective is to get back to the City Council with a proposal as soon as possible. It is unfortunate that the other jurisdictions are not able to help. Mr. Hansen stressed that the committee has not strayed from its charge, but the plan for funding may be different. Mr. Obie suggested that the two jurisdictions which met with the subcommittee be asked to make a statement of support to the community about the airport project, in order that the citizens know why the project will not be funded regionally or by both metropolitan areas. He believed that they have a responsibility to explain to the voters their rationale for not assisting. Mr. Whitlow reported that the City has not given up entirely on opportunities for regional funding, as the City will apply for County road funds for the airport project. Mr. Hansen added that the elected officials in Lane County and Springfield are very supportive of the project, and he believes that they will work closely with the City of Eugene. Mr. Holmer pointed out that the project will be regional by virtue of the Federal revenues used; Eugene will pay only 15 to 25 percent of the cost. Mr. Gleason suggested that the City Council work as carefully in regards to the County road funds as they did with the Six-Year State Highway Plan. Ms. Schue reported that L-COG has met at the airport with an accompanying tour and presentation by Bob Shelby; they were very positive and interested in the project. Mr. Rutan responded to Mr. Miller's question about funding by pointing out that the subcommittee has not ruled out any funding alternatives at this time. Mr. Whitlow reported that the City is preparing background material in order to make application for the County road funds; they hope to apply for a grant, not a loan. Mr. Obie believed that use of the road funds for the project would provide a significant message from Lane County to the citizens of Eugene about their support of the project. Mr. Miller asked when the City will know about the income and revenue status of the airport project. Mr. Rutan replied that it should be fairly firm within 30 to 60 days, prior to the election on August 12 or as late as September 23. Mr. Hansen was not quite as optimistic. MINUTES--City Council Dinner/Work Session April 28, 1986 Page 4 e e . Mr. Gleason reported that the State Lottery funding is fairly firm and an installment has been received from the Federal government. Negotiations are continuing with the tenants. The question is how to finance the project in stages, and how to present the funding process to the voters; will it be bonded debt or a cash donation. Mr. Obie asked if the council could assist in negotiations with the airport users and Mr. Gleason replied that the progress is good, and that the council need not get directly involved at this time. Ms. Bascom asked if any of the stages can be started and Mr. Rutan said that the committee will meet with staff and prepare a proposal. The staging process also needs to come before the council, according to Mr. Rutan. Mr. Obie reiterated that the funding gap needs to be carefully identified in order to provide a projected revenue stream. Mr. Hansen believed that Mr. Gleason and the staff are working through these areas of concern. Mr. Holmer asked if airport user rents are set for a specific time or continuously open and negotiable. Mr. Gleason replied that the negotiations are now year-by-year, but that the City would like to do this differently. He also talked about some of the complex portions of the negotiations. Mr. Obie thanked the members of the Airport Subcommittee and the meeting was recessed at 7 p.m. ~~ Micheal D. Gleason City Manager (Recorded by Judy Jernberg) JJ:je/ST1438 MINUTES--City Council Dinner/Work Session Apri 1 28, 1986 Page 5