Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 04/11/05 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall April 11, 2005 5:30 p.m. 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 to order. A. ITEMS FROM THE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mr. Poling congratulated the 13 Eugene Police Department officers who graduated from the Regional Police Academy last week and who would soon be on the street. Mr. Poling welcomed the Oregon National Guard's 2nd Battalion home from Iraq, noting most members were based locally. He thanked them for their efforts in Iraq. Mr. Poling said that the Oregon Department of Transportation's I-105 project was now underway, resulting in major congestion. He offered the following Web sites and phone numbers for more information: www.keepusmoving.info and Commuter Solutions at 682-6213. Mr. Poling said construction information was available by calling 984-8484. He asked residents to be patient during construction as the result would be a good thing for the community. Mr. Poling reported that the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission was holding a hearing on its fiscal year (FY) 2004-2006 budget at 7 p.m. on April 26, 2005, at the Springfield Council Chamber. Mr. Poling said that construction on the Bus Rapid Transit system in Eugene should commence in mid-April at the Eugene Station and continue eastward. Mr. Poling reported that the Lane Workforce Partnership awarded a $120,000 contract to the Lane County Department of Youth Services to help at least 30 young people develop workforce readiness skills, academic improvement, computer skills, and employability. Ms. Taylor thanked Johnny Medlin of the Parks and Open Space Division for providing her with an inventory of Eugene parks. She said the information indicated there was no excess of parks in south Eugene; rather, they were somewhat lacking in that area. Ms. Taylor acknowledged that south Eugene had more natural resource lands than some other parts of the community, but she believed that such areas should be preserved where they existed. She cited the Willamette Greenway, West Eugene wetlands, and south hills forest as examples. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Taylor asked that the council be given the same privileges as other community members to sit in on the interviews of the candidates for the position of Planning Director. She hoped the council would get a chance to discuss the qualifications that councilors would like to see the new director have. Ms. Taylor noted a complaint she received from the Eugene Garden Club, a nonprofit organization, which was concerned about the $18,000 alley improvement assessment the club must pay. She hoped there was a way the City could waive the assessment for the club. Ms. Taylor was distressed that the memoranda the council received on the recommendations of the Mayor's Committee on Economic Development indicated the council voted 7:1 to accept the report, which it made it sound as though the council adopted the recommendations. She said it was merely good manners to accept the report. Ms. Taylor noted that Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority was seeking a new director, and invited suggestions. Mr. Kelly wished departing Planning and Development Director Tom Coyle well in his new position in Kansas City. Mr. Kelly conveyed his thoughts about the hiring of a new, permanent planning director. He favored an open community process as proposed by City Manager Dennis Taylor. He said that applicants would have different strengths; some would be more focused on the administrative side of the job, while others would be more visionary. Mr. Kelly believed Eugene needed a visionary director who could clearly articulate the council's visions and goals for the community from a planning standpoint. He quoted speakers at a recent American Planning Association Conference, who suggested that planners must push the public to think beyond today's problems and issues to consider what the public would want in ten to twenty years, and that it was increasingly important for planners to look beyond land use and consider social, cultural, and economic factors. The speakers indicated more civic engagement was required. Mr. Kelly believed the new planning director should strongly identify with the general idea of growth management, and the adopted growth management policies should resonate with that individual. He suggested that because the manager planned a deliberative and slow process, a work session be scheduled on the topic of the future of the Planning and Development Department and the future planning director. Mr. Pap6 welcomed members of the council back from spring break. Mr. Pap6 said he attended a UTRACK meeting regarding passenger rail on March 18. At that time, he spoke with Tom Milligan, passenger rail manager for the Union Pacific Railroad, who indicated the company had no plans to change its use of the rail yards it owned in Eugene. In fact, the company was considering increasing their use. He cautioned the council against spending time and energy planning for the future use of the rail yards if they were not available in the near term. Mr. Pap6 also welcomed back the members of the National Guard. Mr. Pap6 thanked Mayor Piercy for participating in the recent Arbor Day Ceremony. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Pap6 indicated his intent to ask the council to discuss House Bill 3301, a bill related to the formation of special districts considered recently by the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR). Speaking to Mr. Pap6's comments about the rail yards, Ms. Ortiz believed residents in her ward only wanted the railroad to be a good neighbor. Ms. Ortiz debriefed the council on the most recent Human Services Commission (HSC) and Police Commission meetings, reporting that the HSC heard an update on budget issues from three service providers. She had been very impressed with how the allocated money was being spent. The Police Commission had debriefed the International City Manager's Association and Police Executive Research Forum reports, and she anticipated that conversation would continue. Ms. Ortiz also congratulated the graduating members of the police academy. She was been impressed with the diverse, mature group that had been hired. Ms. Ortiz thanked Mayor Piercy, Ms. Solomon, Chief Bob Lehner, Mr. Pap~, and Mr. Pryor for their attendance at the Bethel Weed and Seed dinner held on March 14. She expressed pride in the work that had been done and the money that had been brought into the community to serve youth as a result of the Weed and Seed effort. She reported that she and Ms. Solomon agreed to work together to keep the public safety station in Bethel open as much as possible. Ms. Ortiz said that she, Mayor Piercy, City Manager Taylor, and Chief Lehner participated with other Lane County officials in a community conversation on race that occurred on March 12, which was taped by KEZI. She said a copy of the tape was on file in the Human Rights Program Office. Ms. Ortiz noted her recent attendance at the Community Development Block Grant Celebration. Ms. Bettman asked that a work session be scheduled to allow the council to give input on into the qualities it would like to see in a new Planning and Development Department director. She asked City Manager Taylor to use the hiring process as an opportunity to consider the possibility of splitting the department in two, a Planning Department and a Permit and Information/Development Department. She thought the two functions were very different, and the City could realize some important community objectives if it separated them. She believed it was counterintuitive to have the development and planning functions housed together in the same department. Ms. Bettman reported that the council would hold a public hearing on April 25 at 7:30 p.m. on the report the City Council received from the International City Management Association and Police Executives Research Forum. She noted the document was available on the City's Web site. Ms. Bettman reported she visited the Seattle Office of Public Accountability and interviewed its executive director and two members of the civilian review board, which had been very interesting. She learned a great deal, and offered to write a memorandum regarding her visit. Mr. Pryor said he attended the most recent meeting of the Lane Metro Partnership, which was about to embark on an end-of-the year assessment that would include a progress report and an evaluation of the effectiveness of the director and board, which could affect the next budget. He understood that there were MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 3 Work Session some local business expansion and start-ups occurring. Mr. Pryor said the next meeting of the partnership would be a joint meeting with the Lane Workforce Partnership on April 28. Mr. Pryor reported he attended the March meeting of the McKenzie Watershed Council and heard a very interesting report on bull trout research in the McKenzie basin. Mr. Pryor reported that he and Mayor Piercy made a presentation to the House Committee on Trade and Economic Development when it recently held a hearing in Eugene regarding two measures under considera- tion at the State legislature and the general economic situation in Lane County. Ms. Solomon said that the Bethel Public Safety Station had been housed in its new location for a full year, and its use had increased since that move. She said the council could expect her and Ms. Ortiz to press to secure ongoing funding for the station after the Weed and Seed grant expired. Ms. Solomon reported that the Housing Policy Board had agreed that the City of Eugene would go out for a Request for Proposals for a property located at Royal Avenue and Danebo Road. Mayor Piercy said she recently attended a "That's My Farmer" event at the First Congregational Church, where the congregation was encouraged to support local farmers by signing up for food box programs. Ms. Bettman indicated her intent to ask the council to consider House Bill 2608, a bill recently considered by the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations regarding the need for proof of citizenship for a person to secure a driver's license. Ms. Taylor noted that the Farmers Market had recently reopened after the winter hiatus and it was wonderful. City Manager Dennis Taylor thanked the councilors for their willingness to go to Salem on short notice to testify before the State Legislature about bills of interest to Eugene. City Manager Taylor noted the importance of the Community Development Block Grants to Eugene and acknowledged the celebration that had occurred. B. WORK SESSION: An Ordinance to Adopt the Modifications to the Metropolitan Wastewa- ter Management Commission Intergovernmental Agreement; and A Resolution to Approve Issuance of Revenue Bonds by the Metropolitan Wastewater Man- agement Commission The council was joined for the item by Wastewater Director Peter Ruffler, City Attorney Glenn Klein, Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) Director Susan Smith, and MWMC legal counsel David Jewett. Mr. Ruffler recalled the previous work sessions held on the topic on February 9, saying since the work session the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) had been finalized and provided to the City Council. The IGA reflected the final input of the bond counsels, financial advisors, legal counsels, and elected officials. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Ruffler summarized the changes to the agreement, noting they were generally related to the financial provisions of the IGA and would allow the MWMC to issue revenue bonds needed to generate the revenue necessary to implement the 2004 Facilities Plan. The modifications would strengthen the assurances that moderate rates and fees would be established sufficient to cover long-term borrowing by MWMC. Mr. Ruffler recommended approval of the agreement. Mr. Ruffler noted the feedback provided by the council was incorporated into the draft IGA in that the Metropolitan Policy Committee remained the dispute resolution body. A courtesy copy of the draft IGA was provided to the City of Coburg. Mr. Ruffler noted that a public hearing was scheduled for May 9, and final action was scheduled for May 23, 2005. The Springfield City Council held a work session on the item and would hold a public hearing and possibly take action on April 18. The Lane County Finance and Audit Committee discussed the IGA and had a follow-up meeting scheduled April 12 for further discussion. No action had been scheduled before the Lane Board of County Commissioners. Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. Mr. Kelly asked staff to discuss the Board of County Commissioners' position on the IGA and the County's role in the IGA. Mr. Ruffler said he did not want to speculate about the board's position as the board had not yet discussed the IGA. The chief executive officers of the three participating jurisdictions had discussed the issue, and County Administrator Bill Van Vactor discussed his interest in pursuing some options not outlined in the draft IGA. Mr. Ruffler noted that Commissioner Anna Morrison, a past member of the MWMC, indicated some concerns about the IGA. In regard to the role of the County, that was outlined in the IGA but it was not the same level of participation as that of the two cities. The County sets no wastewater rates and collects no fees. The County was originally involved in the MWMC as the financing agent and served as the entity that formed the service district that facilitated the construction of the wastewater treatment plant. City Manager Taylor said that legal counsel of the three jurisdictions reviewed the IGA. The County would have preferred the County service district be used as the funding entity. The managers and legal counsels of the two cities believed the recommended approach was the best approach. Mr. Van Vactor had suggested that if the three jurisdictions could not reach agreement, it might be time for the County to withdraw from the agreement. That idea could be pursued, but it was important for the MWMC to get to the bond market in the fall, in time for the first round of capital improvements. He hoped the County would adopt the changes so the timelines could be met. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Ruffler to explain a statement in the Agenda Item Summary that said the modifications included a change in the directive to facilitate timely transfer of ownership. Mr. Ruffler said the original IGA referred to compensation to the cities for the regional facilities; that was because the existing plant was built on the site of the preexisting Eugene, and part of the Springfield, treatment plants which were then dedicated to regional purposes, and the original agreement related to compensation of the two cities for their property and facilities. That issue has never been closed out, although it was probably a moot issue over time. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Poling referred to Section 16 in the IGA related to reconsideration of charges or rates, and asked how user rates and systems development charges (SDCs) were established, and what mechanism was in place for someone to appeal the final decision of the MWMC. Mr. Jewett indicated that both cities had mechanisms in place that allowed residents to challenge their respective SDCs and fees. If the MWMC rates in general were being challenged, citizens could appear before the MWMC and make comments to seek changes. They could also appear before any of the governing bodies and request them to question the actions of the MWMC. Mr. Jewett said the MWMC has processes in place allowing residents to lodge complaints or express concerns. Mr. Poling was concerned about the fees and SDCs established to cover the bond covenants and additional money needed to maintain the bonding. He asked how that was established and what type of mechanism was in place to appeal that decision. Mr. Jewett said the process for establishing user rates and SDCs would remain unchanged. The MWMC would make recommendations to the governing bodies, which would adopt them by ordinance or City Manager action. He clarified that the MWMC did not impose either an SDC or a user rate on individual users. MWMC will recommend rates in the future to the city councils, just as it does know. The two cities would then go through their normal rate-setting process. Also in response to Mr. Poling's question, Mr. Klein said he believed that someone could challenge the fees in Circuit Court through a writ of review. Mr. Jewett said if there was no change in the SDC methodology but an action was taken that increased the SDC rate, the State SDC statute enabling the MWMC to establish the rate provided a mechanism for review. If there was a change to the methodology, the commission would make that recommendation to the governing bodies and there was a process in place to be followed. Mr. Poling thought it important to move forward with the rate-setting process to ensure the two communities had a system in place to handle the wastewater the area produced and to keep the local rivers clean. Referring to page 10 of the Agenda Item Summary, Mr. Pap6 asked staff to clarify what a ;;minor" revision to the Facilities Plan entailed. Ms. Smith said the IGA provided for five-year updates, and any changes to the Facilities Plan that would drive a five percent user rate increase constituted a minor revision. It was not five percent of the overall cost of the Facilities Plan. The revision was user-rate sensitive. Mr. Pap6 asked if that could be quantified by numbers. Ms. Smith said staff had not done any research on that text, which was included at the request of Mr. Van Vactor as a means to gain greater accountability to the governing bodies. She added that the governing bodies would review the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) on an annual basis, and any changes to the Facilities Plan would be reflected in the CIP. Mr. Pap6 sought an aggregate amount for any given year. Mr. Pap6 expressed concern about the element of the IGA related to the limited recourse of local government in regard to recommended rates or charges. He was concerned about the MWMC as the final arbiter of what was necessary to maintain bond ratings and access capital markets. He asked if there had been discussion of forming an independent body to make that determination. Ms. Smith clarified that the text in question was specifically requested for inclusion by the bond counsels. The finance staffs of Eugene and Springfield discussed the issue in terms of the target objectives for bond ratings and interest payments. Both cities have a stated policy of maintaining an ;;A" rating. Ms. Smith said it was implied that the MWMC MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 6 Work Session would also seek an "A" rating. There were certain requirements for achieving that rating that would be provided by the financial advisors. City Manager Taylor added that part of the assurance to the governing bodies was that the commission would make its recommendation to the governing bodies, and any difference in their positions would be referred to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) for resolution. That resolution would then be referred to the three jurisdictions for adoption. The resolution must assure the bond holders that the bonds were sound. If the jurisdictions could not reach agreement through the MPC, the MWMC had the authority to make those assurances. Ms. Bettman asked if all the additional capacity projected in the Facilities Plan was within the city limits of Eugene and Springfield. Mr. Ruffler said the service area was within the urban growth boundaries of the two cities. Ms. Bettman asked if revenues collected from fees paid by Eugene ratepayers and SDCs collected from Eugene development were spent within the Eugene city limits only. In other words, did staff apportion services and infrastructure proportionately to the revenue and where the revenue was geographi- cally collected? Mr. Ruffler said no. Most of the money was spent within the Eugene city limits because that was where the majority of the regional wastewater facilities were located. However, there were some facilities located outside either city. Ms. Bettman clarified that she was focused on capacity. She asked if wastewater fees were generated in the urbanizing areas, and maintained that residents of those areas paid no SDCs because they were in the County. She maintained that to the degree the City was providing services to the urban transition area, residents living within the city limits and in particular Eugene, with the largest concentration of residents, were subsidizing the capacity of those rate payers. Ms. Bettman referred to sections 4 and 5 on page 17 of the IGA, which referred to "promoting" equity between newly connected and previously connected users for contributions toward regional facilities and between various classes of users based on the volume, flow, and characteristics of their discharge. In other areas where equity was not being discussed, the IGA used terms such as "ensuring" and %omplying." She interpreted "promoting" as a squishy word that did not guarantee equity. Ms. Bettman had a lot of problems with the IGA. Her largest problem was that it was not compliant with City Growth Management Study policies that stated development was required to pay the full cost of extending services. The plan contained capacity for new development, and if the City could not ensure that SDCs could be collected at a rate that covered that capacity, the ratepayers would end up subsidizing it both in Eugene, Springfield, and in the urban transition area. Speaking to Ms. Bettman's question about whether the City's residents subsidized non-urban areas, Ms. Smith clarified the only residents provided services outside the city limits were those in River Road/Santa Clara, who were connected through a direct extension; in other words, they paid to extend service. User rates were proportional on a flow basis, so they were based on the flow used and its strength, and that was apportioned exactly by the users in either Springfield or Eugene. In regard to the SDC component, that was done on a demand or capacity basis and came down to a unit cost. However many units were built in either city paid the same amount. Ms. Smith noted that the MWMC, under the direction of the governing bodies and the settlement agreement with the Lane County Homebuilders Association, recently updated the SDC methodology with the criteria of equity, fairness, and statutory compliance in mind. The experts hired to take the citizen committee and staff MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 7 Work Session through the exercise of developing the new methodology had to apply the statutory requirements to the methodology, which resulted in the current approach. That methodology was separate from the issue of the IGA. Ms. Taylor asked how much of the demand for wastewater service came from growth in the community. Mr. Ruffler said demand was a mixture of growth and the need to meet more stringent federal permit limits. He was unsure of the exact percentage attributable to growth. Ms. Taylor was concerned about the potential of the City subsidizing growth and suggested that was happening more than once because of the council's intent to adopt an enterprise zone. Mr. Jewett indicated that of the $144 million in new projects, $57.8 would be paid for by growth manifested through the collection of SDCs. Mayor Piercy called for a second round of comments and questions. Mr. Pap~ continued to object to the section of the agreement that gave the MWMC the power to set rates without the approval of the governing bodies or the MPC. He would also eliminate the text related to access to bond markets and meeting bond covenants and allow for a review of the MWMC's opinion by a different, independent body such as the MPC. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Ruffler said that the MWMC would go through a public process to adopt a budget and forward the budget to the two cities for ratification. Each city went through a separate process to adopt the budget. Eugene adopted the rates administratively, and the information was provided to rate payers in advance of adoption, but no public hearing occurred. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~ about what was being done to address the issues of infiltration and inflow, Mr. Ruffler said the two communities had worked with the MWMC to establish programs for each city to address infiltration and inflow. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to extend the item for five minutes. The mo- tion passed unanimously. Ms. Ortiz assured the viewing public that the City was not considering the IGA because it wanted to, but because it had to in order to meet certain federal permitting requirements. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Smith said the term %onnection fees" had been replaced by %ystems development charges." That change was made through the IGA. Ms. Bettman did not believe that the figure cited by Mr. Jewett regarding the capacity needed for new development would fulfill the needs of all such new development. She maintained that the project list contained unfunded new capacity that rate payers would be required to subsidize. She determined from Mr. Ruffler that the MWMC set the SDC rates for regional wastewater SDCs. The cities established the local wastewater rate. City Manager Taylor noted that the three governing bodies reviewed the SDC and must also adopt it. Ms. Bettman maintained she was told the reason the City could not increase its SDCs for capacity was because the rates were set at a regional level, and the IGA required the City to have rates that were consistent with Springfield's.. She reiterated that the IGA was inconsistent with the City's Growth Management Study policies, and asked the manager for input on how the IGA could be made consistent with those policies. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 8 Work Session City Manager Taylor did not know the answer to Ms. Bettman's question, and assured the council that the IGA was the best effort of the three jurisdictions, their bond counsels, and their attorneys to create a mechanism by which the MWMC could go to the bond market and successfully sell bonds. Mr. Kelly suggested that staff generate some information about how much of the project list contained in the Facilities Plan was due to growth, how the cost was calculated, and what would be paid for by SDCs. Speaking to some earlier remarks made by Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly said he believed that before any significant development occurred in the urban transition area, annexation would be require, and therefore would be subject to City SDCs. Mr. Ruffler concurred. Mr. Kelly suggested a staff response to the question of whether the capacity needed for growth in the urbanizing area would be paid by SDCs. Speaking to Mr. Pap6's concern about Section 16, Mr. Kelly said he did not see why the section could not be revised to involve the MPC before the MWMC made an ultimate decision. C. WORK SESSION: Chase Gardens Mixed-Use Area The council was joined for the item by Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter and Senior Planner Allen Lowe. Mr. Yeiter provided background on the item, noting there were several such mixed-use areas being considered for additional planning, and he anticipated that issues of how to accommodate growth while retaining neighborhood character and natural resources would continue to be discussed in context of those areas as they were reviewed. He said that nodes, or mixed-use centers, were the region's adopted approach toward accommodating growth in a manner that improved neighborhoods, increased transportation options, satisfied State goals for reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and accomplished all those goals in a humane and livable way. Mr. Yeiter said that while the City had articulated broad visions for those areas many times over the years, it was finding that getting the mixed-use centers built in a manner that met the vision was the biggest challenge. The Chase mixed-use center was a good example of that. The center was planned during the development of the Willakenzie Area Plan. Following that, Eugene received a Transportation Growth Management grant from the State and went through a lengthy planning process involving the neighborhood and a consultant team. That resulted in amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan and the Willakenzie Area Plan, and the development of a special mixed-use zone for the area. Mr. Yeiter said the amendments and special zone were intended to make the area more marketable, particularly for the commercial uses envisioned. The City employed relatively flexible standards for the area; for example, it had not applied the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to the development. The City attempted to meet the key objectives of getting the mixed-use development through private investment with few disincentives. A market analysis had been performed at that time and private interest had been high, and the City believed the area would be the first operating node. The developer who was on board at the time had believed the desired retail uses, including a large grocery store, could be brought into the site. Mr. Yeiter said as time passed, the short-term market for such a grocery did not exist at the site, and the developer sold the site. The commercial portion was now being proposed for a medical clinic use. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Yeiter said that the work session was held because the Harlow Neighbors requested it. He said the neighbors were disappointed about the loss of a neighborhood retail center. Mr. Yeiter said the developers had made an effort to secure some retail uses on the site but had not been able to secure a grocery store. He did not think the property could hold both a medical clinic and a large grocery store. Even if a grocery store was built on other commercial properties within the node, east of Garden Way, it would not be the optimum site for the pedestrian-friendly node the City hoped to see built. Mr. Yeiter said the City had few tools, particularly financial tools, to bring to the situation. Mr. Yeiter said that Harlow Neighbors asked the City to place a moratorium on the development of the property and consider zoning changes that would require a grocery store or at least limit the amount of non- retail development that occurred on the site. He said the neighbors would like to see more financial incentives created to facilitate a different type of development and additional staff resources placed toward the issue. Mr. Yeiter said that staff had spent considerable time over the past few months in an attempt to re-site the proposed medical use to the downtown core. For a variety of reasons, that had not worked out. Mr. Yeiter suggested that one option was for the City to purchase the property and become the developer. However, if there was no market for a grocery store, that would be problematic. He said that moratoriums contain loopholes, and staff did not recommend that approach. Mr. Yeiter referred the council to e-mail correspondence from Matt Grady of Gramor Development and from Terry Froemming of the Harlow Neighbors. Mr. Yeiter noted that the high-density residential development on the property adjacent to the area in question appeared to be working very well. Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. Ms. Taylor said the point of the mixed-use center was to give residents of the high-density residential development a place to go to shop. She did not think that would work with the medical clinic being proposed. She said the proposed development would not help the City satisfy State requirements in regard to VMT. Instead, there would be an increased need for autos because of the intense development without services nearby. If the property was developed as proposed, there would be no further opportunity for such services. She thought the City should do what it could to facilitate a grocery store use. Ms. Taylor asked about the loopholes associated with the moratorium. Mr. Yeiter said that the most obvious was that the State law required a 45-day notice for a moratorium, which was sufficient time to allow a property owner to become vested in a development application. City Attorney Glenn Klein concurred. The State law had a process in place that included, at a minimum, the 45-day notice. There was an additional 45 days allowed for public comment. Any one who applied for a permit was allowed to have the permit evaluated on the code in place at that time. Even an incomplete building permit application was acceptable under State law. Ms. Taylor asked if the City could deny approval of a medical facility on the site, and if there was any other suitable land in the area for such a grocery store. Mr. Yeiter thought it would be difficult to deny the medical facility use. He added the medical facility would not use the entire 8-1/2 acres of the site. However, he was unsure the remaining land would be large enough for a grocery of the size desired by the MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 10 Work Session council and neighbors. Grocers usually locate where there was other retail uses to attract customers. Mr. Yeiter said there were about two acres zoned for commercial use on the east side of Garden Way that might be suitable for a grocery store. Staff had discussed the potential of rezoning more commercial land but would then have to replace the lost residential land. Ms. Bettman said the smaller footprint for the grocery store she had preferred was not intended to limit the size of the grocery store but rather was intended to limit the footprint of the first floor. She wished the City could have found a site downtown for the proposed medical use, but acknowledged that such infill development would be a challenge. Ms. Bettman suggested the City Council needed to discuss what it was willing to do to help facilitate infill development. Mr. Yeiter noted that most of the City's existing incentives were focused on downtown. Ms. Bettman recalled that the council adopted a ten percent discount for transportation SDCs in nodes, which was a form of an incentive. Mr. Yeiter concurred. However, he was unsure the medical development in question was eligible for that incentive as such a development must have nodal characteristics to qualify. Ms. Bettman sympathized with the immediate neighbors and other residents in the community similarly affected by development near them. She said the City Council could only address such issues on a policy basis. It could not act to stop individual applications. If City polices and regulations were not working out, the council should revisit them in a comprehensive way. Although she believed the nodal development policies the Land Use Measures Task Force had originally considered had been eroded to a minimal threshold, she believed the area in question had some characteristics that met those standards. Ms. Bettman pointed out the use would create employment in the node and redevelopment opportunities remained for the future. The surface parking lot may eventually redevelop. A multi-story office building was proposed to front onto the street and take access to the sidewalk and parking, and those were two of the criterion established by the council. The most negative thing Ms. Bettman could say about the proposal was it had 20 more parking spaces than required. She was not willing to entertain a moratorium to try to retroactively change the standards. Mr. Poling thanked the residents of the Harlow neighborhood who worked to address the issues associated with the development, as well as the firm W&G, which worked to find common ground with the City. He encouraged staff to continue to work with the neighbors and developers to ensure further compromise occurred in a way that was consistent and predictable with the City Code. Mr. Poling stressed that when he had requested the work session, it was not his intention to attempt to stop the development. He asked if a motion to proceed was required. City Manager Taylor said that the City was obligated to respond to the developer's application and no motion was necessary. Ms. Solomon asked Mr. Klein if the City was in danger of a Ballot Measure 37 claim as it related to the development. Mr. Klein said that if the City adopted a moratorium and changed the standards so they diminished the value of the property, there was the potential of such a claim. Ms. Solomon agreed with Ms. Bettman's comments about the potential nodal aspects of the proposed development. She said there was no market for a grocery store in the node now, but the presence of the medical facility could trigger the development of a grocery store in the future. Ms. Ortiz was not supportive of a moratorium. She said that the small local grocery stores that were in MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 11 Work Session place when she first came to the community were now gone. Grocery stores now were larger and people wanted larger grocery stores. Ms. Ortiz wanted staff to continue working with the neighbors, and she commended the neighbors for their involvement in the issue. Mr. Papd indicated he had supported the work session request because he wanted to err on the side of more discussion and review for the benefit of both continuing and new councilors. Mr. Pap~ said that Eugene had yet to develop a node and he hoped that it would. At the time the council considered the Chase Gardens node, he voted against the three criterions the council mandated for the node because he thought the council was far too prescriptive in its approach to nodes and developers would be repelled. He said that nodes should be a precept, not a prescription. He also opposed a moratorium as he believed that would be changing the rules improperly. He said that the property was purchased after the purchasers consulted with City staff about what development could occur. Mr. Kelly advocated for staff to arrange for sit-down meetings between the neighbors and developers. Mr. Kelly believed that it was an urban legend to suggest that if the council had relaxed its two-story standard, development would have occurred in the area in question. He noted that a representative of Gramor, the past owner of the site, indicated in an e-mail correspondence that City staff had been willing to recommend to the council the standards be relaxed if it would facilitate the development, and the company did not pursue that approach because no primary anchor tenant was willing to occupy the site. He also expressed sympathy to the neighbors, and expressed surprise that the residential densities in the area did not support a grocery store. However, it was clear grocery store developers had been approached about the potential of their locating a store at the site and declined to do so. Mr. Kelly observed that no matter how many people reviewed a detailed code something would come up that fit the code but was never pictured by anyone. He had never envisioned the code could accommodate such a medical development, but he believed Ms. Bettman remarks about the nodal aspects of the development were well-stated. Mr. Kelly suggested that the alternative path or some similar approach could help the City achieve community goals through development. Mr. Kelly asked if Mr. Yeiter would share anything he learned when trying to encourage the medical use to locate downtown. Mr. Yeiter noted that Mike Sullivan and Denny Braud of the Planning and Development Department had done most of that work. Mr. Pryor agreed that what one wished would happen in a location and what happened were not the same. His neighborhood had a small shopping mall where two grocery stores had failed. He said the mixed-use concept was good, but from a practical viewpoint, feasibility analyses clearly indicated it would not work on the site. He encouraged the City to work with the developer to carry out the plan that was already there. Ms. Taylor suggested that if the City was going to achieve its VMT goals, it should preclude anything on mixed-use sites that was not compatible with mixed-use development. If that was not possible, the City should not pretend it could accomplish its goals through such mixed-use centers. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 12 Work Session Mayor Piercy joined in the thanks to the neighborhood group and developer. She commended their work, and hoped that Mr. Poling would become more involved. She suggested some thinking outside the box could be order to help achieve the goals of nodal development in part; perhaps there was an opportunity for an outdoor market at the location. The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 13 Work Session