Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 05/11/05 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall May 11, 2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Papd, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the work session of the Eugene City Council. A. ACTION: Resolution 4834; A Resolution to Approve the Eugene-Springfield Five Year Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development for Submission to the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development Mayor Piercy explained that this was a continuation of a Consent Calendar item at the previous meeting, held on May 9. City Manager Taylor noted that the motion was already on the table. He said Linda Dawson, Grants Manager for the Planning and Development Department (PDD), was available to answer questions. Ms. Bettman thanked staff for refining the language. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to delete references in the plan regarding the City of Eugene's funding of street, alley, and traffic signal improvements in eligible neighborhoods on Table 2B, in the text and in the stated objectives unless the infrastructure improvements were located contiguous with a publicly subsidized low- or very low-income housing development. Ms. Bettman averred that money slated for the alleviation of poverty and homelessness would be spent on projects that were not a high priority because of generally permissive language in the Consolidated Plan. Mr. Kelly appreciated the fine tuning of the language that allowed infrastructure improvements in combination with a housing project. He pointed out that this plan was part of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) process. He said historically the majority of the money had been spent to help various social service agencies and requests always outweighed funding capacity. While he believed there was a need for traffic calming and signalization, he did not think CDBG money was the ~appropriate pot." Ms. Taylor disagreed. She thought that low-income people had a legitimate need for things aside from housing. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 2005 Page 1 Work Session City Manager Taylor said there was an approximate $5 million backlog in areas that met CDBG eligibility levels and this was why the advisory committee recommended keeping this language in the plan. Ms. Bettman commented that when she went through the testimony heard by the Housing Policy Board (HPB) she found no suggestion that more money was needed to improve streets. She underscored that what was needed most were more housing units. She pointed out that it was a council priority to address homelessness. Mr. Poling asked if projects still had to come before the City Council for approval prior to expenditure of the money. City Manager Taylor affirmed this. Mr. Pap6 ascertained from Ms. Dawson that the amendment would limit the range of options that could be considered in the future. Mr. Pap6 said he would not want to limit such options. Mr. Kelly averred that the council would be ~focusing" the funding on the highest priorities. He acknowl- edged that the council had final approval of the dispensation of CDBG funds. However, he felt the council always made the approval in deference to the CDBG Advisory Committee recommendation. He underscored that to date, the council had not changed the recommendations the committee had made. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Dawson reiterated that proposed funding allocations came before the council and the council could choose whether to fund a project. Ms. Taylor stated that it was just as important to prevent homelessness as to address it once it happened. She felt that people were sometimes made homeless by assessments on streets and alleys. The motion failed, 5:3; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Kelly voting in favor. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the last Projected Outcome by delet- ing reference to Eugene Land Use Code to read tOn-going review of Springfield Develop- ment Code.' Ms. Bettman explained that a couple of the issues were not identified well in the tables. She said the amendment would not preclude the HPB from coming before the council and indicating it had identified a problem with the code that was an obstacle. She thought the plan, as written, was already determining a policy direction that sought to work with the cities to amend the land use regulations to allow multi-family units on single-family lots. She thought this to be a broad land use decision that the council had yet to discuss. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to extend the discussion by five minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Kelly related that HPB Chair John VanLandingham supported this amendment. He felt the amendment would not prevent anyone from addressing one of the issues in the land use code that created an unintended challenge for low income housing. He averred that the language was tantamount to ~putting the cart before the horse" as the council should be the entity to review land use code first. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 2005 Page 2 Work Session In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, Ms. Dawson stated that the HPB would continue to pursue regulatory barriers to affordable housing because this was part of its mission, though the amendment, if passed, would remove this from being a stated outcome in the plan. The vote was a tie; 4:4; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Ortiz voting in favor and Mr. Poling, Mr. Pap6, Mr. Pryor, and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in favor of the amendment and the amendment passed. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the last Projected Outcome to delete reference to Eugene City Council to read, 'Bring to Springfield City Council in 2007, im- plement in 2008.' Ms. Bettman opined that the language on page 55 of the plan predetermined and prejudiced a land use issue outcome. She averred the amendment would not preclude the ability of the HPB to present problems that might arise in the code; it would merely bring such matters before the City Council first. Mayor Piercy asked Ms. Dawson to speak to the amendment. Ms. Dawson said the HPB would continue to discuss the issue in both cities over time. Mr. Pap~ affirmed from Ms. Dawson that the HPB had reviewed the whole document. Ms. Dawson said the issues were talked about by the HPB and were left in the plan because it was felt to be important to address such land use issues in both cities. Ms. Solomon iterated that this had been discussed at the last HPB meeting and that the whole group had agreed that the group was a consortium and that all three jurisdictions should be reviewing barriers to low- income housing development. She thought the City of Eugene should stay on board and indicated she would not support the amendment. Ms. Taylor called it a neighborhood protection matter. She averred that there should be a good reason before apartment houses and duplexes were allowed in "unsuitable places." Mr. Kelly felt the issue was one of who would lead in developing changes to the code. Mr. Pap~ reiterated that the code would not change prior to being vetted up through the normal process, which was to come through the Planning Commission and before the City Council. He wanted to hear any good ideas the HPB might have and underscored that it was still up to the council to adopt them. Ms. Bettman asserted that the language as it stood set a timeline and circumvented the council's normal procedure and would prejudice the outcome. She felt the discussion needed policy direction from the council first. She added that the language reflected work that the Planning Commission was already doing on mixed-use development. The motion failed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting in favor. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 2005 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Kelly said in the context of the whole plan these issues were minor, but he was feeling that the time for the council to comment on the issue was at this meeting. He indicated he would vote against the plan. Ms. Bettman opposed the main motion, though she acknowledged that there was a lot in the plan that was very valuable in terms of data and the trends analysis. She thought the intent of utilizing federal money to alleviate homelessness and poverty "was great." She did not think the plan had received adequate scrutiny from the council given the budgetary authority and the changes to policy it invoked. Ms. Bettman predicted that CDBG funding would now be used to pave streets and alleys. She alleged that an "industry lobbyist" sat on the HPB and opined this was inappropriate. She averred that Roxie Cuellar, who represented the Lane County Home Builders Association, had talked about development standards playing a large role in the cost of a housing project, whether it was an affordable housing project or one for the private market. She suggested that Ms. Cuellar was lobbying to have the HPB identify the pre- application issues and raise those issues with staff, particularly those that could reduce costs. She thought Ms. Cuellar was "advocating for the industry using the leverage of the HPB." She felt the Consolidated Plan laid the groundwork for the predetermination and prejudicing of land use issues and because it was brought up through the Consent Calendar this would escape the scrutiny of the council. The vote on the main motion was a tie; 4:4; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Pap~, and Mr. Poling voting to approve and Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Kelly voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted to approve the Consolidated Plan as amended and the motion passed. Ms. Taylor requested that a work session be held on the Consolidated Plan when it next came up for approval. Mayor Piercy asked councilors to make a concerted effort to see what was coming up and to "get out in front of it." She averred that if an issue was something that needed greater consideration, bringing it up in advance would allow time to give it the appropriate amount of attention. B. WORK SESSION: An Ordinance Concerning Standards for Police Uniforms; Adding Section 2.665 to the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing for an Effective Date City Manager Taylor stated that the Police Commission had brought this issue forward. He presented Police Commission member John Brown to the council to speak on it. Mr. Brown called the item "proactive and preemptive," rather than responsive. He said the commission observed some events in the community that supported passage of this particular ordinance. He cited a complaint filed with the Eugene Police Department (EPD) that an officer had been witnessed sleeping under a tree, but that officer had, in fact, been a security officer for a shopping facility. He related that he participated in numerous police "ride-alongs" and had witnessed arrests in the University of Oregon (UO) campus area involving both EPD officers and the University's Department of Public Safety (UO-DPS) officers. Feedback from those arrests, he related, indicated a public opinion that too many EPD officers responded to such arrests and that it was "overkill" when, in fact, there were both EPD and UO-DPS MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 2005 Page 4 Work Session officers present. He averred that students could not tell one officer from the other. Mr. Brown stated that the inability citizens had to regularly distinguish private security officers from EPD officers created difficulties. He noted that in the downtown core alone, there were officers from five or six different security companies. He said there were no laws prohibiting security officers from looking like EPD officers, nor were there any rules governing the use of the word ;police' on such uniforms. He reported that State Senator Floyd Prozanski sponsored a bill that sought to address this issue. It had passed the State Senate and was now before the State House of Representatives. Mr. Brown listed three reasons there should be an ordinance governing standards for police uniforms: 1) Uniforms could be misleading and confusing to the public and members of the public may approach the wrong personnel in an emergency situation; 2) If someone mistook a security officer for a police officer, it could present a safety issue for the security officer; 3) The ordinance would be complaint-driven and would seek voluntary compliance before any penal- ties would be put into effect. Mr. Brown conveyed the Police Commission recommendation that the effective date be delayed so that it would not create a financial burden on private security. Continuing, Mr. Brown encouraged the council to move ahead with a public hearing. He hoped that it would be scheduled before the end of the school year so that University of Oregon students could partici- pate. Mr. Brown affirmed for Mr. Poling that there had been an incident in which a security person was mistaken for an EPD officer. He explained that the security officer was attempting to handle a disturbance at a University dormitory that the SWAT Team had been called to and was unreachable via EPD radio frequencies. Mr. Poling indicated his support for the ordinance. He commented that the public was likely to confuse uniforms when in a crisis situation. He felt the UO-DPS uniform should be distinctive from the EPD uniform. Mr. Kelly thanked the Police Commission for its work. He favored moving the issue to a public hearing. He observed that he was not always able to discern a UO-DPS officer from an officer of the EPD. Mr. Pap~ asked if the EPD could issue a complaint, given that the ordinance would be complaint-driven. Mr. Brown thought that anyone could file such a complaint. Ms. Ortiz welcomed the proposed ordinance. She said members of the community had complained to her that they were unable to tell the difference between private and public officers. Mayor Piercy asked if City staff was making the extra effort to make people affected by the ordinance aware of the public hearing. Mr. Brown replied that the stakeholders had been contacted. Mr. Pap~ asked what official authority the UO-DPS officers held. EPD Chief Bob Lehner responded that MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 2005 Page 5 Work Session the authority came from the State. Director of the Department of Public Safety for the University of Oregon Tom Hicks explained that the authority of the DPS officers came from a State statute. The statute allowed officers to make arrests for probable cause and to stop and detain someone suspected of a crime. He noted that the City had recently granted the DPS the authority to issue municipal citations for a select group of incidents. Mr. Hicks wished to point out that the UO-DPS officers wore a uniform that was ~virtually identical" to those worn on other state university campuses. In response to another question from Mr. Papd, Mr. Hicks said he was uncertain whether he would be able to institute a uniform change and that he would have to consult with his colleagues on other university campuses. In response to a question from Mr. Poling, Mr. Brown stated that the commission had contacted the administration from the Lane County Sheriff's Office (LCSO) and the Oregon State Police (OSP). Mayor Piercy thanked Mr. Brown and the Police Commission for their work. C. WORK SESSION: Interstate 5/Franklin Boulevard Update The council was joined for the item by Principal Civil Engineer for the Public Works Department Chris Henry, Area 5 Planner for the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Tom Boyatt, and consultant to ODOT from Kittelson Associates, Julia Kuhn. Mr. Henry stated that the first phase of the interchange project development formed a project management team of staff and local agencies, conducted a high-level inventory of infrastructure, and identified and interviewed a stakeholder group. He said the second phase would initiate a community dialogue with the stakeholders, planning commissions, and city councils in order to seek approval to move forward with more design and a third phase. Mr. Boyatt noted the information he was presenting was in the agenda item summary (ALS). He said when he was before the council in November, ODOT's direction for planning before the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and the Phase 1 work were the topics of conversation. He stated that the planning before the NEPA process was primarily to determine whether or not the community was actually ready at the planning, policy, and construction prioritization levels to address a project such as the ramp to the interstate. He referred to the letter included in council packets from ODOT Region 2 Manager Jeff Scheick, which summed up the resolution of issues, stating that ODOT would proceed with the Oregon Transportation Investment Act (OTIA) III bridge package to replace the Willamette River Bridge and the design would accommodate ramps and their associated geometry. He showed a slide of the bridge area. Mr. Boyatt predicted, because of the distance and grade between Franklin Boulevard and Interstate 5, that ramp connections might not be able to touch the bridge. He added that connecting the ramps at the bridge could also preclude the possibility of widening the bridge at a future date. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 2005 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Boyatt stated that ODOT had committed $2.75 million to fund environmental impact statements (ELS) for the construction of ramps once the community had demonstrated its priority and support for the project at the planning and policy levels. He said the Phase 1 work plan had intended to check in with the community and use the process to identify community concerns and gauge the level of local support. This had been used to develop the Phase 2 work plan. He noted that the AlS contained the consultant's summary memorandum. He called the process valuable in guiding the Phase 2 work plan and further refining the ongoing process. Continuing, Mr. Boyatt provided a PowerPoint presentation on the Phase 2 process. He related that the consultants had called the process a "community dialogue." He said there might not be a notice to proceed on the Phase 2 work until the middle of June of this year. He indicated that ODOT would initially meet with the Springfield/Eugene/Lane County (SEL) group, made up of city managers and the county administrator, to refine how the project would be able to interface with elected bodies and planning commissions. He commented that planning projects helped ODOT be successful in building technical information. Because it was an interstate freeway and "the backbone of West Coast economy," he noted there was some interface with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and its interchange designers and overseers. Mr. Boyatt said technical analysis would be conducted in five segments: 1) An environmental scan; 2) A conceptual design; 3) Preliminary engineering; 4) Preliminary traffic analysis; 5) A look at finance options. Mr. Boyatt predicted there would be a significant price tag for the entire project. He hoped through the course of the project, discrete segments could be identified as stand alone projects through the research and technical work. Mr. Boyatt stated that the environmental scan would be a high level review of existing information. He said it was hoped that ODOT could glean what it could from the detour structure work and from the replacement structure work. He reiterated that ODOT would pay for a site visit and the mining of the data that was there in order to better understand the environmental conditions. He felt conceptual design was fairly self- explanatory. Preliminary engineering was important, he said, due to federal standards for interchange spacing on Interstate 5. He pointed out that it would also aid in understanding how the interchanges would work, how likely it would be to obtain federal exceptions and approvals, and feasibility of the design and ensuing cost estimates. He predicted that financing would be critical as resources were getting "thinner." Mr. Boyatt thought one resource could be tax increment financing. He remarked that when the public invested hundreds of millions of dollars, it became "immediately apparent" that the value of the land went up relative to the investment. He lauded public/private partnerships as a way to provide opportunities for bigger projects. In closing, Mr. Boyatt briefly reviewed the public process, planned to begin with stakeholder open houses. He said the project management team (PMT) would guide consultants through the process and would then review the results. He reiterated that the bulk of the project was the data development/technical portion and MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 2005 Page 7 Work Session when that was completed the plan was to brief the planning commissions, the city officials, and two joint meetings with the oversight committee. He added that Phase 3 of the work plan would occur once the communities had given the "thumbs up" and agreed to undertake the necessary Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) and TransPlan amendments. They hoped to draft a problem statement by the end of the process and to document everything that ODOT was doing with the public process. He conveyed ODOT's hope that there would be enough money in the work plan to move forward with Phase 3 should the communities find the project had merit. He said ODOT staff was looking for affirmation from the Eugene City Council that the project was on the right track. Mayor Piercy called on the council for comments and questions. Mr. Kelly ascertained from Mr. Boyatt that ODOT staff was seeking a "head nod" to embark on the Phase 2 portion of the project, consisting primarily of the public process. He shared his uncertainty as to whether the interchange should or would get built, but he supported the plan for Phase 2. He opined that the City needed to make the best use of existing river crossings given that it was not inclined to build additional crossings. He thought it important to involve affected neighborhoods. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Kelly. She appreciated the process of scoping and defining the project and the involvement of the stakeholders prior to asking the council to give its approval of the project. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Boyatt stated that ODOT representatives would discuss with the SEL what the process would be to make the decision on the last phase. He said there were four people, three representing local governments and one from ODOT, that would make the "thumbs up or thumbs down" decision likely based on direction from elected officials. The discussion with the SEL would cover what relationship the representatives would have with the elected body. He thought the team could decide it needed joint elected officials meetings and other broad processes that were difficult to schedule, but this was uncertain at this point. He added that he would defer to each of the elected bodies to answer that question about its relationship to the project. Ms. Bettman averred that the City Council should be the body that ultimately approved or disapproved the project. She commented that the project would "suck every other transportation dollar out of the budget." She indicated she would not be supportive of letting the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) or the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) make the decision. In response to another question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Boyatt explained that because the grade to the bridge was too steep, the ramps would have to access the interstate north or south of the bridge. Ms. Ortiz averred that the freeway system in Southern California had abetted gang activity by providing easy access to the highway system. She asked if this was a consideration. Mr. Boyatt responded that this had not been discussed at this point. He commented that the transportation department had a difficult time with social discussions. He underscored that he wanted to ensure that any ideas that came to the table were discussed and worked through. He noted that he was aware that this sort of discussion occurred when the City of Portland was considering construction of it light rail facilities, adding that concerns expressed had not panned out to be true. Ms. Ortiz said her other concern lay in putting all of the City's "eggs in one basket." She noted safety MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 2005 Page 8 Work Session issues on Beltline Road that warranted attention. Mr. Pryor indicated his support for the process and the project. He predicted the project could be a major asset to the community into the future. He agreed with the concept that at some point in the process policy makers should be involved in the decision. He thought one way this could occur would be through direction to the SEL representative by elected officials. He remarked that the SEL group did not just "go make stuff up and agree," but rather that their actions were generally a reflection of their policy makers. In regard to funding, Mr. Pryor acknowledged there were many projects that needed to go on. He said as valuable as the project was, it was not likely that the City of Eugene could involve the "lion's share" of its transportation resources. Ms. Taylor agreed with much of what had been said. She thought the entire community should be involved in the discussion. She remarked that she had been alarmed to hear that so few people would be involved in the final decision. Mr. Boyatt responded that he perceived that the three people would represent the will of each of the three general purpose governments. Ms. Taylor averred the City Council should be involved in the final decision. She asked if this bridge would provide relief for the Ferry Street Bridge. Mr. Boyatt replied that such questions would be addressed by Phase 2 of the project. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Boyatt said it was not possible to present design ideas at this phase of the project. He added that a nationally known designer, Brian Ray, would be doing the design work when the time came. Mr. Pap~ thought the ramps from Franklin Boulevard would be a wonderful addition to the system. In response to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding the height of the bridge, Mr. Boyatt stated that bridge height had some relationship with maritime law. He added that the geometry of the bridge was partially related to the difference between the grades to the south and north of the river. Mr. Pap~ expressed disappointment that this was being parsed into two projects. He wondered if there would be economies of scale should the two jobs be conducted simultaneously. Mr. Boyatt responded that there was some hope on the part of ODOT that the construction jobs would come back together in time to realize some efficiencies. He added that it depended on the will of the affected communities and the processes involved with the plan amendments and NEPA. He said, in response to another question, that the temporary bridge was bound by OTIA III constraints to come down by 2012. Mr. Pap~ pointed out that Mr. Poling's neighborhood and the neighborhood to the north of the river would be affected should the ramps be located there. He recommended their inclusion in the stakeholders groups. Mr. Poling favored the project overall. He conveyed his approval for the Phase 2 project and thanked ODOT for specifically involving the Citizens Planning Committee for the Whilamut Natural Area of Alton Baker Park. He agreed with Mr. Pap~ that the Harlow Neighbors should be involved in the process. Mayor Piercy expressed cautious optimism for the project. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 2005 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Kelly underscored that the City Council should be able to vote on whether to sign off on the project. He recognized the challenges of gathering the Joint Elected Officials and suggested that each body meet separately. Mr. Kelly expressed frustration that the project had been divided into two segments. He hoped the legislature could be convinced to change the OTIA rules so that both the ramp and the bridge could be constructed and some savings realized. Ms. Bettman reiterated her objection to allowing the SEL, MPC, or MPO make the final decision. She asserted again that the City Council should have the final say. Mr. Boyatt responded that the Eugene City Council absolutely had the power to make a yay or nay vote and direct its representative to relay its decision. Ms. Bettman wanted the process to be delineated ahead of time so that the representative would not have veto power and potentially circumvent the will of the council. Mr. Kelly pointed out that when a TransPlan amendment was needed all three elected bodies had to sign off so it would not make sense to proceed with the foreknowledge that one elected body would object. He hoped that ODOT would get back to all three jurisdictions and the State to indicate that the City of Eugene would agree to Phase 2 but wanted to specify that its decision authority would be the council. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 2005 Page 10 Work Session