Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/11/08 Work SessionM I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon June 11, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. ACTION: Coordinated Population Projections City Manager Jon Ruiz said the purpose of the work session was to receive direction from the council regarding beginning the process of establishing a population forecast for Eugene in order to comply with requirements of House Bill 3337. He introduced Lisa Gardner, of the Planning and Development Department, to present the topic. Ms. Gardner stated that the comprehensive lands assessment studies required by HB 3337 required that a 20-year population forecast be established for both Springfield and Eugene much earlier than the County’s next periodic review. She said the County had delegated preparation of the population forecast to Lane Council of Governments (LCOG), but in April 2008 the Board of County Commissioners had rejected LCOG’s forecast and decided to wait until its next periodic review to conduct a population forecast. She said the County had rescinded that action and would be conducting a population forecast sooner than the next periodic review. She said state statutes allow cities to use a “safe harbor” approach to establishing population forecasts if a coordinated number is not otherwise available. She said City staff had reviewed several options and determined that the safe harbor approach was the best strategy for moving forward; Springfield staff had made the same determination and there was an opportunity to be more efficient by preparing one joint Metro Plan amendment that would allow each jurisdiction to take its own path. Ms. Gardner said the council was being asked to initiate a Metro Plan amendment process, but doing so did not commit the City to a population figure. She said an amendment process would allow input and questions when it went before the Planning Commission and the council. Ms. Bettman asked about the impact of the County’s most recent action on Eugene’s use of the safe harbor approach. Ms. Gardner said County staff was preparing materials for a June 25, 2008, work session that would include four options for the board’s consideration, none of which would preclude moving forward with the safe harbor approach or render a safe harbor population number irrelevant. She said safe harbor would assume a steady 1.31 percent growth rate for the urban population projected over the 20-year period. Ms. Bettman asked if establishing a population projection was a requirement of HB 3337. City Attorney Emily Jerome explained that the bill required the City to demonstrate it was providing sufficient buildable lands to accommodate housing needs for 20 years and a 20-year population forecast was required to begin that process. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Bettman asked when the County’s next periodic review was scheduled. Ms. Gardner said it would begin in six years. Ms. Jerome added that the current population forecast was a combined number for Eugene and Springfield and it only went to 2013. Ms. Bettman asked what process would be used to distribute population figures among the cities in Lane County and what role the council would have in reconciling those numbers. Ms. Gardner said the council would not have a role in reconciling the numbers because it was a County function to develop a coordinated population forecast. The recommendation from staff was to initiate a Metro Plan amendment process, which could be coordinated with Springfield to achieve some efficiencies. She said the County had several actions it could take at its June 25 work session; however, most of those options would take considerable time and increase Eugene’s need for a safe harbor number to comply with HB 3337. She said none of the County’s options would change Eugene’s safe harbor number. She said Eugene’s safe harbor number would be conservative and she was not certain what process the County would use to redistribute any additional population from a coordinated forecast. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Jerome explained that the Division of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) had appealed on behalf of small cities, Lane County’s original resolution to postpone the population forecast until the next periodic review. She said the appeal had the intended effect as the County had withdrawn that decision. Referring to a memorandum from Ms. Gardner, Ms. Bettman asked what specific Eugene-related planning items would be delegated to regional staff. She asked who the regional staff was. Ms. Jerome said that Eugene and Springfield staff would be assigned to the project and a single amendment package, with a population forecast for each city, would be presented to the County. She said the project would be coordinated between Eugene and Springfield staff, but no other staff would be involved. Ms. Bettman asked if the same growth rate would be assumed for both jurisdictions. Ms. Gardner replied that the growth rate of 1.31 percent would be assumed for each jurisdiction based on currently adopted population figures and that trend would be extended over a 20-year period. She said each city would develop its own population number. Ms. Bettman asked if the adopted population number, or the 2005 number that was not adopted, would be used. Ms. Jerome stated that the formula for establishing population forecasts was in the statute and cited the relevant language. Ms. Bettman asserted that the 1.31 percent was a combined growth rate for the Eugene and Springfield areas. She asked if that would be broken down into an actual growth rate for Eugene and a growth rate for Springfield. Ms. Gardner cited a Portland State University 2007 study that estimated Eugene’s population at 153,690 and Spring- field’s at 57,320. She said, assuming a safe harbor approach at 1.31 percent growth rate, those figures would be 221,000 and 82,000 respectively. She understood that 1.31 percent reflected both cities’ existing growth rates. Ms. Taylor asked if there was any advantage to separate Metro Plan amendments. She thought it would be more work to coordinate the efforts of two staffs. Ms. Gardner said the population forecast processes would be separate and result in a forecast for each jurisdiction; they would be packaged in one amendment to present to the County, although that was not necessary if the council preferred a separate amendment. Ms. Taylor asked what option the City had if it decided not to use the safe harbor approach. Ms. Gardner replied that the City would have to wait for the County to establish a coordinated population number and that could take longer than the City had to meet its statutory requirements under HB 3337. She said the City had 18 months to comply and the analysis would take that long; it could not afford to wait. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Taylor asked if the City could choose a one- or two-percent growth rate. Ms. Gardner said the growth rate had to be based on an assumption about growth and using a past assumption was acceptable. She was not aware of any options that would allow the City to choose another assumption. Ms. Taylor asked what advantages or disadvantages there might be to having a higher or lower population projection. She also asked why the small cities had appealed the County’s initial decision. Ms. Gardner said a significantly higher or lower projection would affect what the 20-year supply of land should be. She understood that for small cities the growth rate and population assigned was more critical in terms of scale and could affect things like infrastructure and improvements. She said some state allocations were based on population projections. Ms. Taylor asked if a city would have to pay back funds if its population growth was slower than forecast. She commented that a larger population growth would create more pressure to expand the urban growth boundary (UGB). Ms. Gardner said she would need to research the question about repayment of state funds. She said a significantly higher growth rate would raise questions about how to accommodate that growth, but the safe harbor approach would not require any policy or growth rate change for the City. Mr. Pryor said that the questions about appeals by small cities and other aspects of the County’s action were interesting, but not relevant to the council’s decision. He felt the safe harbor approach presented the most flexible option the City had to keep moving forward under HB 3337 requirements, without being committed to a projection that could not later be revised. He said LCOG’s effort to forecast separate populations was based on 2005 numbers, even though they had not been adopted, and growth rates based on previous trends. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Gardner said she did not know the specific methodology used to develop the 1.31 percent assumption, but it was more conservative than the LCOG number. Mr. Zelenka said if there was a finite amount of State funding available for infrastructure and it was allocated based on population, a conservative assumption for Eugene and unrealistically high assumptions for other cities could shift money away from Eugene. He asked if the 1.31 percent assumption for both Eugene and Springfield could change. Ms. Gardner said there was already a targeted population number for each city based on the assumption and those numbers would not change during the planning process. Mr. Clark asked what efficiencies would be realized through coordination with Springfield. Ms. Gardner said there could be efficiencies in terms of both time and money through joint planning activities, as well as efficiencies in presenting one Metro Plan amendment to the County. Mr. Clark indicated he would support the City Manager’s recommendation as the logical way to move forward without taking other options off the table. Ms. Bettman asked what Springfield’s projected growth rate would be if it were based on specific historic data instead of a combined growth rate for Eugene and Springfield. Ms. Gardner said she would need to research the answer to that question. Ms. Bettman said that was a key issue for her and agreed with Mr. Zelenka’s concern about the allocation of state resources based on population projections. She said going with the safe harbor approach meant the City was adopting a projected population number. She was not convinced it was in the City’s best interests to move forward with a combined Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment and intended to amend the motion to assure the cities moved forward separately. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Ruiz cited a report from ECONorthwest to the Springfield City Council in October 2007 that said 1.7 percent was the average annual growth rate for Springfield between 1995 and 2006. He said given the relative populations of Eugene and Springfield, the combined rate of 1.31 percent was probably only slightly higher than Eugene’s actual average annual growth rate. Ms. Piercy asked if the public processes for Eugene and Springfield would be separate. Ms. Gardner said they could be separate. She emphasized that the critical path was initiation of the Metro Plan amendment, not combining efforts with Springfield. She said the processes could be separate if that was the council’s preference. Ms. Ortiz asked if the City would have to pay back state funds that might be allocated based on over- estimating the population forecast. Ms. Gardner said the question was outside her area of expertise. She said most population numbers were based on census data, which was separate from the planning figure being used. Ms. Ortiz felt that the process presented a good opportunity to work with Springfield and realize efficiencies in a coordinated effort. She expected that the jurisdictions’ public outreach processes would differ. Mr. Zelenka noted that Appendix A confirmed Mr. Ruiz’s estimate of Eugene and Springfield’s population growth rates. Mr. Pryor asked if a coordinated process would involve the staff of both cities working collaboratively and a collaborative public outreach and information gathering process. Ms. Gardner said a joint elected officials process could be used. Ms. Jerome added that each jurisdiction could decide the extent to which it wanted public involvement prior to joint hearings. Mr. Pryor said his concern was assuring that Eugene residents had full access to the process and opportunities to provide input. He saw advantages to staff from the jurisdictions working together and did not perceive staff from one city trying to co-opt the other. Mr. Poling asked if the County had any preference in terms of the City’s approach. Ms. Gardner said the County staff concurred with the safe harbor approach. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to initiate a Metro Plan amendment to adopt a safe harbor population forecast for Eugene. Ms. Bettman said she understood the Board of County Commissioners was considering a coordinated projection and that would supersede safe harbor. Ms. Gardner reiterated that it did not mean the safe harbor assumption would be changed. Ms. Bettman asked at what date it was assumed the projected 231,420 population target would be reached. Ms. Gardner said it was projected that the population figure of 221,000 would be reached by 2030. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion to move forward with a City of Eugene initiated Metro Plan amendment. Ms. Bettman said it was her experience that there was more public involvement if the effort was City-oriented and she did not foresee there would be much difference in the outcome. She said using the numbers to justify larger investments in metropolitan wastewater or transportation capacity, or expansion of the UGB, would include assumptions built into that decision-making process that required community input. She said Springfield was building out at half of the Metro Plan density requirements and Eugene was taking a different approach. She said it MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2008 Page 4 Work Session was the first in a long sequence of Metro Plan amendments and it was important to engage the community early in the process. Ms. Gardner clarified that that there were public involvement activities associated with the Metro Plan amendment and also with the HB 3337 process. A citizen involvement plan for the HB 3337 would be presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Zelenka commented that both Springfield and Eugene would use a 1.31 percent growth rate for developing their buildable land inventories. He asked how that rate could change. Ms. Gardner said policy choices could be made at the conclusion of the study regarding the provision of a 20-year supply of buildable land. She felt the safe harbor number would carry the City through the full analysis. Mr. Zelenka asked for the current range of average household size. Mr. Clark asked what impact Ms. Bettman’s motion would have on the proposed process. Ms. Gardner said she believed there were efficiencies to be gained by moving forward together on a Metro Plan amendment. She said the public process could be separate and as robust as the council wanted. She said the motion would mean the jurisdictions would go separately to the County, requiring the County to process two amendments, and the benefits of staff working together to prepare materials would be lost. Mr. Clark said he would not support the amendment because the original motion left all options on the table. Ms. Solomon said constituents expected jurisdictions to work in a coordinated manner when there was an opportunity to do so and it would behoove the council to take advantage of any efficiencies in a coordinated process. She felt Eugene’s values would be reflected in the process and the City could augment its part with additional public hearings and community input. She would not support the amendment. Ms. Bettman asked if staff would not work with Springfield if the amendment passed. Ms. Gardner said she understood the amendment meant staff from Eugene and Springfield would not be working together to prepare materials for the Metro Plan amendment. Ms. Bettman remarked that moving forward with the safe harbor approach limited the City’s options because it was committing to a population number for 2030. Ms. Gardner agreed, but pointed out that number would be revisited during the next periodic review. Ms. Bettman wanted the savings realized through a coordinated process quantified. She said if that could not be substantiated the staff could not claim to be saving money by moving forward with a coordinated approach. Mr. Ruiz said it was reasonable to expect that time and resources would be conserved by virtue of having staff work together on an amendment instead of working separately on two amendments, although it would be difficult to assign a specific value to the savings. Ms. Bettman commented that waiting until the County had made its decision was most efficient and the City was “jumping the gun” because if the County adopted coordinated population projections the City would not need to take a safe harbor approach. Ms. Gardner said there was benefit to the City initiating a Metro Plan amendment prior to the County taking action because if the County’s projections were appealed, the City could not move forward. If the City initiated its own safe harbor approach it was granted that number in six months. Ms. Jerome added it was a matter of timing. She said the real issue was whether the County chose an option that did not result in a coordinated population projection until it was too late for the City to comply with HB 3337. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2008 Page 5 Work Session The motion to amend failed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting yes. The main motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting no. Ms. Piercy remarked that the issue of changes in household composition had been raised in several presentations at the Moving Forward Together conference currently underway. B. WORK SESSION: Selection of Community Advisory Team (CAT) Members for EWEB Riverfront Master Planning Process Mr. Ruiz introduced Nan Laurence, of the Planning and Development Department, to respond to questions from the council on the appointment of advisory team members. Mr. Pryor asked if councilors had responded to the straw poll on candidates. Ms. Laurence said she had not received any responses yet. Mr. Pryor suggested that councilors submit their straw polls by the end of the week and Ms. Laurence could tally the results in order for Mr. Pryor to put forward four names at the June 16 meeting. He said the council could discuss the qualities it was seeking in candidates for the remainder of the work session, but he hoped for a consensus on individuals to be appointed. Ms. Laurence remarked that EWEB hoped to hold the first meeting of the CAT on June 19. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Pryor’s suggestion to take more time and make a decision on selection of candidates on June 16. He said it was unfortunate that the council would not go through its regular process of interviewing candidates for appointment to boards and commissions as the riverfront master planning process was critical. Ms. Solomon also concurred with the suggestion to postpone a decision on appointments until June 16. Ms. Taylor stated that she had reviewed the list and was prepared to indicate her preference for four candidates. Ms. Bettman said she did not object to a straw poll. Her interest in selecting four names from the pool of applicants was to achieve balance on the CAT as there were few applicants who had a neighborhood perspective or reflected broader community interests beyond an industry perspective. Ms. Ortiz thanked everyone who had applied for appointment to the CAT. She was impressed by the caliber of applicants who were interested in EWEB’s planning process and willing to volunteer on behalf of the City. She agreed that there should be balance on the CAT, but observed those who were interested were the most likely to pay attention to opportunities to participate. She asked how the appointments were advertised. Ms. Laurence said the City did not send emails soliciting applicants, but did use a number of other means to spread the word in the community, including posting notices on the website and on buses. Mr. Zelenka also thanked those who applied. He said the nature of the project was to discuss the property’s development potential and that naturally skewed applications toward development interests. He agreed with the need to try to achieve some type of balance in CAT membership. Mr. Clark said he had reviewed the applications and was impressed by the level of skills available to the council. He said the final project decision would be made by the council, which represented a balance of community views, but MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2008 Page 6 Work Session the process required accurate, professional and reliable information from people who understood all of the aspects of developing the property in order for the council to make a wise decision. He was pleased to see that a number of young people, who had a vested interest in the outcome of the process, had applied. Ms. Bettman said she did not view appointing CAT members with a lot of expertise as the council’s intent because City and EWEB staff could provide technical expertise. She understood the council was interested in incorporating community values in the master planning process, including how the river related to downtown. She said that EWEB would develop a master plan for the site, which would come before the council as a quasi-judicial decision. She said the council could either approve or disapprove the plan, but not modify it. Ms. Laurence said there would be a series of applications that the council would have the ability to approve as presented or request modifications. She would confirm with legal counsel the extent to which the council could require modifications as part of approval. City Attorney Glenn Klein said a Metro Plan amendment would be part of the application process and he did not believe the council was limited to approving or denying. He said in the past the council had approved applications with specific conditions and would research those examples. Ms. Piercy said in her view everyone that applied for the CAT was a citizen of the community and all had an interest in the community. She said just because an applicant had a specific area of interest did not mean that individual did not also have the interests of a citizen. She noted that the list of applicants included those with a background in riparian issues, art, nonprofit agencies, history, neighborhoods, architecture - and students. Mr. Clark noted that two applicants were not residents of Eugene. Mr. Zelenka suggested eliminating applicants who were not residents. Ms. Piercy summarized that the council would conduct a straw poll due on June 13, with a decision on applicants scheduled for June 16. The meeting adjourned at 1:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2008 Page 7 Work Session