Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 05/18/05 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall May 18, 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. She announced that the council would begin with the second item on the agenda, a work session on the Santa Clara Community Park as Ms. Solomon had to leave the meeting early and wished to cast her vote on the item. A. WORK SESSION: Santa Clara Community Park Update City Manager Dennis Taylor asked Parks and Open Space Planning Manager Andrea Riner to provide a brief update. Ms. Riner said the agenda item summary (AIS) had outlined the information well. She pointed out that the AlS contained the findings of the telephone survey conducted in March, the findings of the appraisals requested by the council, and a recent letter from the McDougal Brothers' representative, Mike Evans. Ms. Ortiz appreciated the Santa Clara community coming out and showing support for the work. She noted that she had been quoted in The Register-Guard as needing more information. She felt she had learned what she needed to know at this point. She said Ms. Bettman would be bringing forth a motion and indicated her intent to support it. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to cease all action on the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) amendment for the McDougal/Santa Clara land swap urban growth boundary expansion and to instead pursue direct acquisition of an appropriately sized parcel in or out of the urban growth boundary to land bank for eventual development of a community park in Santa Clara. Ms. Bettman said the motion assumed there would be community involvement and took into account that there were no funds to actually develop the park. She averred the original direction to staff had been to move forward with land within the urban growth boundary (UGB) but they had not evaluated to any extent the broader picture of what might be available. Ms. Bettman believed that the McDougal Brothers would likely make $6 to $12 million from the property MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 2005 Page 1 Work Session they would gain from the proposed trade as well as a $3 million tax write off on the property donated to the City and between $150,000 and $250,000 in systems development charge (SDC) credits. She thought the Metro Plan amendment and the eventual rezoning of the property represented extraordinary benefits as well. She felt the land swap would set a precedent and no other willing sellers would come forward because they would now know they could "leverage the City for multi-million dollar deals." Mr. Kelly called the issue a "tough one." He had initially thought the proposal had some merit as there was no question that Santa Clara needed and deserved a community park of a larger scale. While he appreciated the creativity of the original idea, he would support the motion. He supported acquiring a park site to land bank, but did not believe the land swap was in the best interest of the City. Mr. Kelly said the City needed to go through a City-wide planning process for growth that would include opportunity mapping, asset mapping, and density distribution and a determination of how much growth each neighborhood must absorb. He averred that without this process proposed growth planning was being done in isolation. Additionally, he felt this proposal was ahead of the River Road/Santa Clara Transition Plan discussion. Ms. Taylor supported the motion. Ms. Taylor offered a friendly amendment to the motion to change the word 'parcel' to 'parcels.' The maker and second of the motion accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Taylor called the proposed development "inappropriate." She said it was wrong to change the UGB for a developer. She felt the survey was '~terrible" and opined that it was "obviously designed" to persuade people. She reiterated her delight in the alliance formed between the Santa Clara park advocates and the people who sought to preserve a parcel of land in the Dillard Road/Nectar Way area. Mr. Pap6 was uncertain as to how to decide on this issue. He pointed out that there were greater community interests to take into account beside just what the north end of Santa Clara wanted as this park was slated to be a large park for all of the community to use. He was concerned about the commitment to a community park in that area the City had made to the people of Eugene and of the River Road/Santa Clara area in 1998 when placing the bond on the ballot. He wanted the funds that were allocated to remain in that area. He stressed that the council needed to work diligently to provide balance in park spaces throughout the city. Mr. Pap6 related that he met with Ms. Riner, staff and a constituent to try and work on this issue and a question had been raised as to whether Razor Park could be developed. Ms. Riner responded that it was part of the West Bank system along side the Willamette River. She recalled that there had been a planning process for that park and hundreds of people had looked at the plan. She said the planning process resulted in a decision to keep Razor Park as it was for natural resource uses. Mr. Pap6 wondered if there were other parcels along side the river that could be developed into a community park. Ms. Riner replied that the City had looked at a 40-acre parcel along the river and determined it would encounter many of the same issues: access, UGB expansion, impacts to neighborhoods, and no willing seller. In response to another question from Mr. Pap6, Ms. Riner said acquisition of park land along the Willamette MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 2005 Page 2 Work Session Greenway was a priority but the plans for acquisition centered on natural resource and trail values. Mr. Pap6 asked Ms. Riner to provide staff input on the suggestion that the Santa Clara Elementary School site be developed for park usage. Ms. Riner said the site was too small for a full service community park, though it could be appropriate for a neighborhood park. She stated that the City already owned several acres for a community park near the school, however. She indicated that the use of the site as a stand-alone community center was not desired because of maintenance and operations costs and also in terms of goals for a community park. She reiterated that it was a high priority to bring park uses and users together in a single location instead of having one site for one use and another for a different use. She hoped one park could provide opportunities for people with diverse recreational interests to come together in one location. In response to another question from Mr. Pap6, Ms. Riner affirmed that economies of scale would be realized in a larger park both in development and in ongoing programming and maintenance. She under- scored the importance of coming up with an option that was the most efficient to operate. She cited the Amazon Park and Aquatic Center as an example of a large community park that worked well from an operations point of view. Mayor Piercy related that she had conversations with School District 4J representatives regarding the elementary school and they indicated there were public safety issues occurring there. She said the district believed the site had great potential for commercial development. She commented that as one thought about parks, one needed to think about how difficult "pocket parks" were for safety purposes in the community. She noted some of the major challenges existing parks already presented. Mayor Piercy conveyed her appreciation for the input from the neighborhood. She acknowledged that in addition to the people who spoke about farm land and traffic issues, there had also been a vocal minority that was supportive of the park because they believed it was something that would be wonderful for the future of the community. Ms. Bettman said no one objected to the placement of a park in that area. She reiterated that the issue lay in objections to the proposed housing and commercial developments. Regarding where the UGB should be expanded, she predicted that this Class 1 agricultural soil would be the least likely to be considered on its own merits to be brought into the UGB and developed. Ms. Bettman asserted that neighbors would not, as promised, be allowed to provide input into the design for the development of the properties should the land swap go through. She also averred that staff had indicated that no further transportation infrastructure would be needed in the area to meet the additional load the development would create. Ms. Solomon said she could not support a motion to cease all action. She believed this to be an opportunity to "kill a couple of birds with one stone." She felt the City still had the negotiating power to work toward a better deal. She asked staff to comment on whether the agreement could be modified. Ms. Riner stated that the deadline for this was in July and depending on what both parties agreed to do, the agreement would either lapse or be modified at that time. Ms. Ortiz called for the question. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 2005 Page 3 Work Session Mayor Piercy asked if the discussion could continue given that only two people were left in the queue to speak. Ms. Ortiz withdrew her call for the question. Mr. Pap6 indicated his opposition to the motion. He was concerned the City was not following through with the promise it made to River Road/Santa Clara residents in the bond measure of 1998 to provide a large community park for the area. He believed that only two parcels met the criteria, one by the river by Beltline Road and the property currently being considered. He said should this land swap be defeated, he intended to make a motion that the City go forth and try to acquire one of those properties either through purchasing it or through the condemnation process. Ms. Taylor commented that the City could buy 40 acres if it needed to. She advocated for using condemna- tion if necessary. She averred that the Amazon Park was %o full of stuff" that there was not a lot of park left. She suggested listening to the neighbors who have indicated they would be satisfied with several smaller parks. Ms. Ortiz said what caught her eye was that the proposal came from business interests and not from the interests of the community. She added that should Mr. Pap6 place another motion on the table to purchase land she would support it. The vote was a tie, 4:4; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Or- tiz voting in favor and Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Pap6, and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted for the motion and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Mayor Piercy said she felt this was in the best interest of the community. Ms. Solomon left the meeting at 12:35 p.m. Mr. Kelly remarked that it may become necessary for an eminent domain action. City Manager Taylor surmised that the council was asking staff to continue to look for viable options for a park, though the vote concluded the proposed transaction. He thought there would still be opportunities and that the council was aware of the will of the voters toward purchasing such a community park space. Mr. Pap6 reiterated that the swap had included removal of a property at the south end of the City from the UGB and buying it to preserve it for open space. City Manager Taylor said that part of the transaction was lost through the council action. Mr. Pap6 said he would strongly object should anyone suggest that money set aside for parks in the north side of town be moved elsewhere. Ms. Bettman commented that while the Laurel Hill site ;;might have been a nice site to have" it entailed $950,000 of acquisition money and the property did not fall on the list of priorities. She opined that MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 2005 Page 4 Work Session sometimes an opportunity was not really what was within policy or in the best interest of the City. Mr. Pryor indicated he was amenable to the outcome of the vote. He called the move toward acquisition of park land in that area of town ;;the critical piece." He felt the decision had been difficult. Ms. Taylor reiterated that the deal was not a swap in the sense that the City was going to be given this choice piece of land; the land in the south hills would have cost money. Mayor Piercy underscored the commitment of all of the councilors toward park development in the River Road/Santa Clara area. B. WORK SESSION: Consideration of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Action on Two Grant Applications City Manager Taylor said Mr. Pap6 had brought this forward for reconsideration after the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) vote concerning two grant applications. He stated that because the grant applications were due on May 19 he and the Mayor had agreed to place this item on the agenda for the current agenda. Principal Planner for the Planning and Development Department (PDD) Kurt Yeiter explained that this was the time of year the biennial Transportation Growth Management (TGM) grant applications were due, adding that the grants for site-specific planning for mixed-use centers were due on May 23. He said three TGM applications had been packaged for the CCIGR and two of them were authorized. The third application had a little more lead time, as the City had to state its intentions by mid-June, and involved a request for technical assistance, i.e., a team of consultants who would look at the City's land use procedures. Mr. Yeiter further explained that the other grant that had been rejected was from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He stated that the application had to be sent by FedEx within an hour in order to qualify for it. He explained that the EPA grant would provide the City of Eugene with a team of experts and not direct funding. He related that Urban Services Manager for the Community Development Division of PDD Richie Weinman thought Eugene stood a good chance of attaining the EPA grant, though only six cities would qualify, because of the City's past commitment and activities in trying to implement mixed-use centers and "smart growth" principles. He underscored that staff's position was that staff wanted to apply for as many grants as could be handled over the next two years. Mr. Pap~ thanked the Mayor and council for allowing this item to take precedence on the agenda. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved that the City of Eugene apply for the Environmental Protection Agency Smart Growth award. Ms. Taylor ascertained from Mr. Yeiter that the timeline for the third TGM grant was not urgent as a letter of intent was not due until June. Mr. Yeiter clarified that this was not the subject of the current motion. Mr. Kelly commented that of the four grants the CCIGR considered, this grant was the only one that offered staffing and not funding. He felt some frustration that the immediacy of the deadline for the EPA grant did MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 2005 Page 5 Work Session not allow the City Council to "shape or tweak" the application. He thought that not having a local context was both beneficial and detrimental for bringing in a team of help from elsewhere. He noted that the language said the City needed help in identifying and removing barriers and reinforcing and reshaping. He opined that the application should have listed the 19 Growth Management Policies and stated that the City had mixed-use development as a goal and then asked for advice as to how the City could better get to that goal. He felt the words 'remove barriers' were both denotative and connotative senses of "let the flood gates open" and did not speak to the positive elements of the growth standards. Ms. Bettman said she staunchly objected to both of the grants. She thought the grants were not related to adopted policy and, therefore, should not be moved forward. She asserted that the EPA grant was based on "morphed" policy that she thought was a direction that staff wished to go in though the council had not given that direction. She alleged this was articulated in the last section of (4), which she found "very troubling." She quoted a portion of the application which seemed to indicate that support for the City's mixed-use development strategy was the long-term answer to the challenges the City was facing and called the strategy the embodiment of "the heart of 'smart growth' philosophy." She agreed that the council had worked on nodal development, but said it had not held the policy discussion wherein mixed-use could be substituted for nodal development. She asserted the application was questioning the City's Growth Management Policies and pointed out that they had undergone a very extensive public process. She called it "astounding" that the grant could be construed to say the City was questioning those policies. She said when the council had discussed nodal development it had been determined that the real problem with the strategy was that it was too "one-size-fits-all. She felt the dynamic in both of the applications was code- centered and would create a city-wide situation when what was really needed was to examine specific areas and determine how best the goals could be met in those areas. Mr. Poling stated that he had reviewed the draft earlier in the morning and had seen nothing in it that suggested that action would be required as a result of recommendations. Rather, he related, the grant would provide a team of experts that would come in and review what the City was doing and suggest ways to address some of the problems the City was having. He averred that some of those problems were due to past regulatory and procedural changes to the code. He called the application another "piece of the puzzle" to help the City reach what it seemed the City wanted to do for many years, which was to develop "smart growth" and nodal or mixed-use Development. He thought experts from across the country would have more experience and expertise than anyone at the table and would be able to provide suggestions, guidelines, and recommendations based on what had been done in the past and what had and had not worked. He opined the council would be missing a golden opportunity. He pointed out that a broad-based local team would help the EPA team and the results would go back into the public process. Mr. Pap~ concurred with Mr. Poling. He asked if it would be possible to "tweak" the direction of the team. Mr. Yeiter replied that he believed the parameters for the local team would be flexible. He added that the City had not used this EPA program before and he was not sure how rigid its team would be with its procedures. Mr. Pap~ reiterated that anything the EPA team would come up with as a recommendation would be subject to review by the public, the Planning Commission, and the City Council should it so choose. He asked what resources the EPA grant would require from the City. Mr. Yeiter responded that the main work would be staff hours for the educating of the EPA team on the City's land use code, its development standards, infrastructure standards, and financing mechanisms. He said once that work was done it would be primarily MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 2005 Page 6 Work Session the EPA team working with the City's technical advisors in developing recommendations. He stressed that it would take additional resources to pursue any of the recommendations at that point. Mr. Pap~ remarked that information was wonderful and information the community could get on how to move forward some of its ideals would be a boon and should not be overlooked. Mr. Pryor recalled that when the City was working on TransPlan, a definition of nodal development had been built up around it. He thought the degree to which it varied from mixed-use development would be worthy of a great discussion and it would benefit the council to discuss the similarities and differences between the two. He said it did not, however, make his ~antennae quiver" over this particular grant application. He averred that money spent to get more information and study the issue would not tie anyone's hands regarding a potential sound discussion of the issue. Mayor Piercy observed that staff seemed to say that nodal development and mixed-use were the same thing while the councilors seemed not to know what mixed-use development was. She urged staff to schedule a work session on it so that the council could gain clarity on the issue. Mr. Yeiter responded that while the item had not been scheduled, a work session was planned. Mayor Piercy stated that the EPA grant was very much in line with the City of Eugene's Growth Manage- ment Policies. She said she had read in the document a desire to lead into more locally sensitive planning. She was inclined to believe the item should be moved forward. Mr. Kelly wanted to see a dramatic increase in infill and development and significant changes in density and he believed the City needed those changes. He disagreed with the proponents of the grant, because of the way that it was phrased, because he thought it could put the City in a ~rather narrow hallway." He felt things developed a momentum. He said just as the council gave lip service to its policies and the public process that generated them and gave credibility to the TransPlan, credibility would also be given to recommendations that came from this process because of the ~national experts and local team" that put them together. He averred it would make the recommendations more difficult to critique and work through. He opined that the staff in the Planning and Development Department, the council, and the community collectively ~had the smarts" to do this. He suggested that more funding was needed for ~planning folks" and more political will was needed around the council table to move things forward. Ms. Bettman reiterated that this was not a grant, %xperts" would be sent, and the City would have to match this with local resources to do the work. She felt the investment of resources in this work would force the results on City policy. She asked Mr. Pap~ if he would be willing to take a friendly amendment to remove language she felt questioned the validity of the City's growth management policies. Mr. Yeiter was uncertain whether any changes could be made given the tight time flame. Ms. Bettman repeated that the document questioned the validity of the City's Growth Management Policies and did not reinforce them. She asserted that the grant would commit the City to follow up the results with action. Regarding the local team, Ms. Bettman thought the recommendation in the application was unbalanced because it included the Lane Transit District (LTD), the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG), 1000 MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 2005 Page 7 Work Session Friends of Oregon, the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, and the Lane County Home Builders Association. She opined that 1000 Friends of Oregon really amounted to one person who had a minimal amount of time to devote to the process as opposed to the Lane County Home Builders Association and chamber, which paid people to represent them. She called this representation a ~%p-sided list of entities" that did not constitute a public involvement process. Mayor Piercy asked if the list of possible contributors to the local team constricted the council from adding other groups. Mr. Yeiter replied that it did not. Mayor Piercy asked if it would be possible to put in the council's intention to broaden that group of people. Mr. Yeiter affirmed that it would. City Manager Taylor did not believe sending the grant out with the language it currently contained precluded doing exactly what was being suggested. Ms. Taylor reiterated that the grant would not provide any funding. She felt the City had a wealth of experts and sometimes did not listen to them. She recalled a charette in the Atrium Building about economic development, the results of which she averred were ignored. Mr. Poling acknowledged that the grant was neither for cash nor was it to match local funding. He underscored that any money it would cost would be due to the time the local team spent bringing the EPA team ;;up to speed." Regarding the groups Ms. Bettman listed, he stressed that the memorandum clearly indicated that the groups listed were as an example. He averred that the Mayor with her ability to bring diverse groups of people together would be able to bring together a very balanced group of people to evaluate and follow up on the recommendations. Mr. Yeiter said the local partnership team was what would normally be called a technical advisory committee and was intended to provide someone other than staff for the EPA team to speak with. He stressed that it was not intended to be the sole public outreach. Mr. Kelly asked if it would be possible to change the language on the document so that it spoke about reinforcing local growth management policies and to change the list for the local partnership team. He suggested, regarding the latter, that it say a local partnership would be formed at a later date and list some options for groups that could possibly participate in it. Mr. Yeiter stated that Planning Division Director Susan Muir was trying to contact the grant writer to see if it would be possible to change the language at this point. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion to have staff edit the application in Section 4 wherein it questioned the recently adopted Growth Management Policies viability and change it to a statement reinforcing those 19 policies and that the partnership team could include those entities but that the final team would be established by the Mayor. Ms. Bettman averred that the grant was competitive and should it have lukewarm council support it might not go anywhere once it arrived in Washington, DC. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 2005 Page 8 Work Session The motion to amend passed unanimously, 7:0. The main motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Pap6, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to forward the third Transporta- tion Growth Management Grant for approximately $50,000. Mr. Kelly acknowledged the two grants that were not before the council, which he felt fulfilled the council's charge to do more individualized planning for neighborhoods. Regarding the grant before the council, he thought because the grant was ahead of the council's policy discussion on mixed-use it felt like ;;half a grant." He asked that the discussion on the last item be allowed to influence the writing of the grant. He asked staff to consider what changes or additions to the City's land use code and other laws would better accomplish the City's growth management policies. Mr. Yeiter stated that this was staff's intent. Mr. Pap6 asked if this item could be referred back to the CCIGR for reworking. Mr. Pap6, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to table the item and send it to the CCIGR. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Bettman and Mr. Poling voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy asked the council to inform the CCIGR by finishing its conversation on the item. Ms. Bettman asked how many people around the table knew what good development was and how many people could define it. She asked how many people could define mixed-use. She speculated that when talking about good development her definition would differ from Mr. Poling's. She thought to move forward with a ~definitive" effort to recommend alterations to the Land Use Code and to remove barriers and to facilitate good development when that was undefined was ~troublesome." She averred the council was %ack to tweaking the code" for the entire city when site-specific planning was really what was needed. In response to a question from Mr. Poling, Mr. Yeiter explained that the first two TGM grants were due on May 23 and for the third, the department needed to submit a letter of intent by June 15 it would reserve the City's right to apply. Mr. Poling stated that this grant would help the City look at what it was ~dealing with" and make recom- mendations. He stressed that it did not seek to remove any barriers, but rather would be a review of mixed- use development and land use codes and other local development standards and then recommend changes that would better facilitate good development whatever that might be. He underscored that the grant did not require the City to change anything. He speculated that one result from such a grant might be a recommen- dation that the City should do more site-specific planning. He said it was an opportunity to get assistance and technical advice from people who had been dealing with these types of development. Mr. Kelly asked what had happened with the ~Density Done Right" project undertaken by the Planning Commission several years earlier. Mr. Yeiter replied that a subcommittee of the Planning Commission had MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 2005 Page 9 Work Session not been able to produce a product. He said the Chambers Reconsidered Study would take this idea further. He added that this was part of the reason grants such as these were sought. Mr. Kelly said he hoped staff would speak to the Land Use Code and other laws and policies in the grant application. He thought the code could be area specific in many ways and already was given the different zones and overlay zones. Mr. Kelly asked for an analysis of design standards in light of Ballot Measure 37. Ms. Bettman related that she had looked at the EPA Web site and had found that there were no mixed-use policies from the City of Eugene. Ms. Bettman suggested that staff look at the minutes and listen to the tape of this meeting and inculcate what Mr. Yeiter had said into the intent of the application. She asserted that the thrust of the Planning and Development Department at this point was to remove obstacles to mixed-use development from the code. She felt nodal development created a dense center with lesser densities as one moved farther from the center and that mixed-use meant the entire area of a space was open for mixed-use. Mr. Yeiter explained that this was not the definition the City was using for the mixed-use center program, but rather the definitions of nodal development were still being used. Mr. Pap~ commented that the council had been hung up on two words: ~removing obstacles.' He thought the council should look at how to improve the code to better align with growth management policies or some other way of calling it. City Manager Taylor agreed that how things were said was very important. Mr. Yeiter added that the objectives were the same. City Manager Taylor said he was anxious to work with the council to find the way to express its direction in a positive voice rather than in a way that sounded like there was skepticism regarding the policies that were already in place. Mr. Pap~ remarked that he welcomed people who knew nothing about Eugene and were not prejudiced by what was here so that ideas could come out that had not been thought of before. He did not think the council and staff had all the ideas. The meeting adjourned at 1:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 2005 Page 10 Work Session