Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 04/28/03 Mtg MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber--City Hall April 28, 2003 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gary PapS, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Torrey reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Rob Handy, 455-1/2 River Road, advocated for a refinement plan in the River Road area. He believed it would help the area achieve equity in funding. He advocated for the residents' budget proposal for the implementation of the recommendations of the River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Committees, suggesting that adoption of the recommendation would help to build trust between the City and area residents. He supported the creation of a refinement plan prior to the development of a refinement plan. Mr. Handy averred that it was making residents of the area very unhappy. He suggested a part-time consultant instead of a City employee be hired to serve as transition manager. Paul Conte, 1461 West l0th Avenue, spoke to the benefits of nodal development and the contribution those inner city residents made in avoiding urban sprawl. He advocated for preservation of those inner- city neighborhoods by preserving housing, etc. He hoped that the council did not extend the Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption boundaries so as to further costly high-rise residential development. Mr. Conte supported the Planning Commission's recommendations for site-specific plans for nodal areas, suggesting that the adoption of the nodal development overlay without widespread public involvement was a mistake. He asked the council to direct the commission and department to spend no more time on the overlay, but to develop site-specific plans for each node. Mr. Conte submitted his remarks in writing. Deborah Jeffries, 3800 North Delta Highway, said that on April 16 the council listened to a summary of the Business Climate Survey. She said that she was not one of those surveyed but had participated in one of the focus groups. She encouraged other Eugene business owners to attend a public forum to tell the council that the perceptions of the survey were not only valid but reality. She said that her negative experiences with the City went beyond the Building Division, MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 1 Regular Meeting citing several examples. The Natural Resources Study was, she said, another example of a City action affecting her from which she saw no benefit. She said that superior customer service should be considered by the council with each decision it made. She asked that each councilor give clear and unconditional support to the new City Manager and his staff. Greg Arisen, 4594 Parsons Avenue, thanked the councilors who responded to his e-mail. He opposed the renaming of Centennial Boulevard to Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard because the road was named for a reason. He said that Dr. King was worthy of honor and he supported renaming the Ferry Street Bridge to that end. He had asked how much the street name would cost as no one had been able to provide him with that information. Peg Morton, 510 Van Buren Street, spoke in support of renaming Centennial Boulevard in honor of Dr. King. She spoke of her own encounter with racism while traveling in the south. She said the country had come a long way but there was still considerable racism in the country. She spoke of Dr. King's accomplishments and said the community needed to honor him as the greatest person in recent history. There being no other requests to speak, Mayor Torrey closed the Public Forum and invited council comments. Councilor Pap~ said he spoke to a couple of Planning Commissioners, and they indicated that they had to either reject or accept the Centennial Boulevard name change and were not allowed to consider other options. He asked City Manager Dennis Taylor to confirm that fact. Councilor Nathanson said that the council had responded to a request and recommendation from both the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Board of County Commissioners. The council did not initiate a process directing the commission to do an exhaustive search for appropriate facilities to rename in honor of Dr. King. Councilor Bettman thanked those offering testimony, particularly Ms. Morton. She explained that the motion passed by the council was to initiate a public process to rename Centennial Boulevard in the city limits of Eugene in honor of Dr. King. She said that the council would not be held to the same limits as the commission, given the council's charge to the commission. She hoped the council voted to accept the recommendation of the commission as she thought it an appropriate way to honor Dr. King. Councilor Meisner requested information regarding the costs associated with the renaming of Centennial Boulevard in terms of public resources required, including signage and map changes. Mayor Torrey said that there were people in the community who appeared to believe that if the City failed to rename Centennial Boulevard in honor of Dr. King it was dishonoring Dr. King. He voices his support for renaming the Ferry Street Bridge in honor of Dr. King, noting that it was traveled by many more people than Centennial Boulevard. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 2 Regular Meeting 2.CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda B. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of February 12 and March 26, 2003 C. Approval of City Parks - 4J Land Exchange for Southside Elementary School Mr. Pap6, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Councilor Bettman pulled Item C from the Consent Calendar. Roll call vote; the motion to adopt the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item C passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Bettman asked if the value of the two sites in question had been determined, and if that valuation was part of the process. She asked how certain values would be reflected in the ultimate agreement. Parks Division Manager Johnny Medlin said the parcels were adjacent to each other, and staff believed the values were like, but that each property had different encumbrances. The reason one parcel was larger than the other was because of its proximity to Chambers Street, and needed additional space for runoff for game play. He said that an appraisal of the two sites was not done, but he believed a square footage evaluation would be similar. Councilor Bettman wanted to support the proposal but believed that the City should do a property appraisal as part of a due diligence process. She noted that Parcel A, the site being transferred to the district, abutted Amazon Creek. She asked if that precluded the naturalization of the channel. Mr. Medlin clarified that the parcel was 50 feet from the top of the bank, which the City believed was adequate to address future riparian issues that may arise. He noted that the City also owned the property on the south side of the channel, which facilitated its ability to manage the area as desired. Councilor Bettman asked where the school district would access the property. Bill Hirsch, School District 4J Facilities Director, said 15th Avenue would be bus-only during school hours, and there would be an entry for vehicle access from 14th Avenue and Polk Street, and 14th Avenue would be extended at the City's request. Mr. Hirsch added that the district was aware of the need to consider the riparian areas, and the access at that point would be impervious surface. Councilor Bettman wanted to support the exchange but continued to be concerned about the lack of an appraisal and would not support the exchange without one. Councilor Pap6 supported the proposed land exchange, saying the two parcels in question were level. He asked what would happen to the schools on the site once the new school was built. Mr. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 3 Regular Meeting Hirsch said that Patterson School would be demolished. Part of the site would become the entry to the new school, and the remainder would be developed into a play area for children. He said the district proposed to lease the latter area to the City so it could help the district develop it into fields that would be available for both school and community use. He said that the district was considering what to do with Westmoreland School. He understood that the City had expressed no interest in the site for park land, and the consultant was looking at other potential future uses. Mr. Pap~ asked about the City's plans for Parcel B. Mr. Medlin explained that the fields from Parcel A would be reconstructed, and the district agreed to pick up those costs. Mr. Pap~ asked if the City was going to develop the additional half-acre. Mr. Medlin said that extra space was needed to buffer the area from Chambers Street and to accommodate the runoff area needed for ballfields. Councilor Taylor asked if the district was going to pay for fencing. Mr. Medlin said the district agreed to pay for fencing along the separation of the City and district property, as well as fencing along Chambers. The motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Bettman voting no. 3.PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision Affirming the Planning Director's Determination that Only the Standard Subdivision Procedures, Rather than the Site Review or Planned Unit Development Procedures Shall Apply to a Proposed Four-Lot Tentative Subdivision (Whitbeck Knoll) Alissa Hansen of the Planning and Development Department presented the staff report. She noted the criteria for the application from the Eugene Code Section 9.9630(3). Ms. Hansen explained that the appeal was before the council because the property was within the boundaries of the 1974 South Hills Study and a portion of the property was above 701 feet in elevation. For that reason, the planned-unit development (PUD) applicability provision from Section 9.8305(1)(b) was triggered. That provision required the PUD process for the proposed tentative subdivision unless the alternative review procedure was approved pursuant to Section 9.9630(3)(a). She said the alternative review procedure was unique in the code. Ms. Hansen said the code allowed the Planning Director to determine if the standard subdivision, site review, or PUD process should apply to a major development on property above 701 feet. The director's determination was appealable to the Planning Commission and the City Council. Ms. Hansen said at the time the South Hills Study was adopted, the structure for land use decisions was very different than today; PUD decisions were made by the Planning Commission and appealable to the City Council. Now the Hearings Official makes decisions related to PUDs, which are then appealable to the Planning Commission. Ms. Hansen said that the alternative review procedure was the only procedure appealable to the City Council in the current Land Use Code. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 4 Regular Meeting Ms. Hansen emphasized that the question before the council was not the merits of the proposed subdivision, but the process being used. Staff acknowledged that there were issues related to the development of the site to be resolved. Ms. Hansen clarified that compliance with standard subdivision procedures would be required regardless of whether the appeal was upheld. If the council decided the PUD or site review procedure would apply, such an application would be separate and in addition to the subdivision application. Compliance with the applicable South Hills Study policies as codified in the Eugene Code would be required. Mayor Torrey called for exparte contacts. Councilor Nathanson said that before the issue became an appeal, she had received one or two e-mails and one or two telephone calls as well as a personal contact about the application. She expressed interest in following the issue and acknowledged that she represented a ward that had slope issues in addition to drainage issues that could arise in development situations. City Attorney Glenn Klein asked that the nature of the contact be placed on the record. Councilor Nathanson said that she was told that the residents were aware of a potential development and concerned about what it might mean to their property, particularly in terms of drainage. No technical information was shared with her that she could recall. Councilor Pap6 said that he had also received e-mail contacts and letters, which he assumed were included in the record. He had also received a telephone message that he had not returned on the topic. Councilor Taylor said that she attended neighborhood meetings where the issue was discussed, talked about the issue with citizens on the telephone, and visited the site. Councilor Kelly indicated he was acquainted with some of those testifying before the Planning Commission but had no specific discussion with those individuals about the topic. He had received the same e-mails and letters the other councilors had. Councilor Poling indicated the nature of his contacts was similar to that of other councilors. Mayor Torrey said that he had also received letters and e-mails as well from proponents and opponents of the appeal and had a direct contact with one of the appellants. Councilor Bettman clarified with City Attorney Glenn Klein that the e-mails and letters the council received to this point were in the record and thus they did not constitute an exparte contact. Councilor Pap6 wanted to ensure that all the testimony that had been received by the council was entered into the record. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 5 Regular Meeting Mr. Klein said that the proceeding was considered quasi-judicial. The council must make a decision on the basis of the evidence in the record. He advised the council that as decision makers, it should have no discussions about the topic with anyone outside the council setting. Councilor Meisner noted he had received several e-mails and letters, none of which addressed the question of the appropriate procedures before the council. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Gordon Anslow, 4493 Paddock Drive, noted the testimony he submitted earlier to the Planning Commission. He said that even if the council upheld the Planning Director's decision, and the commission's unanimous decision in support of the application, the City would still have given the appellants an opportunity to comment. Mr. Anslow hoped the council would support those decisions, which were made on the merits of the criteria. Mr. Anslow asked that those offering testimony and identifying themselves as civil engineers also identify their areas of expertise. Mr. Anslow said he wished to correct an assertion that his company refused to meet with the residents. He said that he had met with the neighbors on site and visited Lyndell Wilken's property to discuss her concerns relative to drainage. He received no invitation to meet since then. He said that while the company remained willing to meet, the neighbors should not expect the company to abandon its lawful use of the property and public street. The company proposed the layout shown in consideration of the neighbors' concerns. It was out of the company's hands as to what the City would require in terms of off-site road and stormwater improvements. Those were the responsibility of the City, and contrary to the applicant's statements, the company was not liable for the City's determinations of what was appropriate. The buyers of the houses to be built would pay for the public improvements required, and all would have the same recourse to the City for the proper performance of those facilities. Mr. Anslow hoped that after the three new homes were built, sold, and occupied, councilors would visit the development as an example of good infill and listen to the comments of new residents and neighbors about any lessons to be learned from the experience. Scott Olson, Civil Engineer, Branch Engineering, 1127 B Street, Springfield, supported the applicant and the use of the standard subdivision process. He said he supported the recommendation of Planning Director Jan Childs. He said the site was not without design issues, but if the community desired infill development, it would be hard to find sites as appropriate as the one in question. He thought the issues on the site could be easily addressed through the standard subdivision process, which was more than adequate to protect the neighborhood and City's interests. Mr. Olson pointed out the development activity that would occur on the portion of the site above 701 feet was the connection of the roof drain from the existing house to a new detention facility, leaving less runoff than currently taking place. The PUD process would result MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 6 Regular Meeting in no changes to the approach taken to geotechnical issues, the foundation design, or erosion control measures. Mr. Olson said that a geotechnical analysis was done on the site and the analysis concluded that convention construction methods were appropriate for the site. The street design and off-site drainage improvements required by the City would be done in manner sensitive to the existing vegetation. Lyndell Wilken, 3065 Whitbeck Boulevard, expressed concern that stormwater runoff from the property in question would affect her property. She described existing storm drainage patterns in the area and noted that her house had been flooded twice. She said that when City staff met with her she had expressed concern about the development's proposed use of the open ditch through her property. She was also concerned about the velocity of the water that would leave the site. When she asked what happened if she experienced a flooding situation, she was told by the City that it was her responsibility to work issues out with the developer. Ms. Wilken thought the PUD process afforded her more input in to the design of the development. Sara Burant, 3059 Whitbeck Boulevard, advocated for the use of the PUD process for the development proposal because more information would be provided and the neighborhood would be given "designated access" to the development process through the public hearing process. She maintained that because the developer's goal was profit, the interests of "regular folks" must be safeguarded, and the PUD process would provide more effective safeguards than the subdivision process. Gene Johnson, 3059 Whitbeck Boulevard, said the residents had appealed the decision because the development proposal was a new use, a subdivision, that had not existed before. He said that the PUD provisions were important protections for the neighbors' "right to review" proposed changes that would affect the neighbors. Cindy Fitz, 1156 Lorane Highway, was concerned about the runoff from the development. She said that she had experienced issues with runoff on her property in the past from other development activities. She explained that her property had a cut bank adjacent to the site in question, and she was concerned that the bank would erode. With greater scrutiny, the neighbors could see the development plans and how the bank would be addressed. She said that the issues needed to be worked out with the current, not future, owners of the property. Terry McDonald, 3063 Whitbeck Boulevard, said the proposed development was before the council because of the issues of runoff and traffic. He said that the street in question was nonstandard and had no direct access to storm sewer and there were no storm sewer easements in the neighborhood. He advocated for a high level of scrutiny for the development, given its potential impact on the neighborhood. Mr. McDonald noted that residents of the area had lived there for a long time and were very familiar with it. He said the neighbors appreciated the need for infill, but wanted to see the best possible uses for the area, which is an established neighborhood. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 7 Regular Meeting Mr. McDonald stated that he had personally contacted the developers after the commission's public hearing to invite them to a meeting, but they were not interested. Roxie Cuellar, 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, representing the Lane County Homebuilders Association, said that the issue was the best process to employ, not drainage or traffic problems. She reviewed the costs of the PUD as contrasted to the subdivision process and noted the many more professionals required. The PUD process also took longer. Ms. Cuellar maintained that the cost to the neighborhood of the subdivision process was that the neighbors lose an opportunity to deliver three minutes of oral testimony in front of the Planning Commission. Ms. Cuellar pointed out that under the subdivision process the neighbors could still offer written comments, and suggested that when addressing technical issues, written testimony was far more valuable than oral testimony. She pointed out that the City staff would dictate traffic solutions and stormwater solutions and that the residents would not negotiate those issues with the developer. That would not change if the PUD process was used. Patricia Friskoff, 3087 Whitbeck Boulevard, disagreed with Ms. Cuellar about the benefits of the PUD process. She expressed concern about the possible negative impacts of the development on the neighborhood environment. She was also concerned about how the City addressed the blind bend in the road and the drainage impacts from the development, and wanted the greatest diligence possible be taken so the situation did not worsen. David Monk, 3720 Emerald Street, vice president of the Southeast Neighbors, thought the concerns expressed by neighbors regarding the development were well-taken. He also believed that the PUD process was more appropriate for the site because of the elevation of the property explaining the difference between the two processes was the public hearing. The South Hills Study required a PUD for elevations above 701 feet because of the challenge of building on steep slopes with difficult drainage. Mr. Monk characterized Ms. Cuellar's remarks about the three minutes of public testimony as a red herring, and said it was important for the council to appreciate the public process for its importance to the neighbors. He said that it was important for the City to hear from those familiar with the area, and that would not happen unless the PUD process was used. Mr. Monk noted the recent increase in the fees for appeals, which he believed discouraged the public process. He believed that the burden of proof lay with the developer, and that the developer should pay the additional costs necessitated by the PUD review process. Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing and called for council comments and questions. Councilor Nathanson said that in the past few years, she had become aware of two serious situations that resulted from storm drainage problems. She asked who would be liable for damage, the City or the developer. Mr. Klein said that the answer depended on many factors and did not have enough facts to assign liability at this time. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 8 Regular Meeting Councilor Nathanson asked if there were other differences between the PUD and subdivision process, and what harm there was to the City if it chose a process other than the standard subdivision. Ms. Hansen said the main difference was there was no public hearing under the subdivision process. However, there was public notice sent to all surrounding property owners, the neighborhood association, as well as a public comment period during which residents could submit written comments for staff review and consideration. There was also an appeal process. During the final subdivision process, there was another public notice period and opportunity to appeal. There was also a performance agreement and final site plan approval. She noted that in the case of the PUD, the Hearings Official made the initial decision. Councilor Nathanson said that Ms. Hansen's remarks explained why the Planning Commission concluded there was no substantial differences in the process chosen and that it appeared to be adequate. She said that she had heard nothing to persuade her that there was any harm in choosing a process that gave residents an opportunity to present oral testimony as opposed to written testimony. Ms. Hansen said that staff had examined the issues that had been raised, and the criteria for the subdivision and PUD were nearly identical and would receive the same level of scrutiny. Councilor Bettman referred to the criteria and said that some of them seemed very subjective and discretionary. She asked how the staff used the criteria when determining which site review procedures to use. Ms. Hansen referred her to page 268 of the packet, which included the director's response to each criteria. Councilor Bettman asked how, for example, one evaluated the nature of the surrounding land. Ms. Hansen referred her to the staff analysis. Councilor Bettman asked for the legal standing of the road agreement. Ms. Hansen said that it was not germane to the issue. Councilor Bettman asked if it was a legal issue for the City, and how it would be addressed through the process. Councilor Bettman voiced her support of infill development, however, it was predicated on compatibility with the surrounding area. She asked if the commission believed that a public hearing would not bring forward any new issues, and was therefore not a useful exercise. Ms. Hansen indicated she would followup. Councilor Bettman noted that the staff report indicated the developer could choose to do a partition and avoid either process, and wondered why that was not the developer's choice. Ms. Hansen responded that the developer chose to apply for a subdivision permit because that was what the developer was proposing to construct. Councilor Pap6 asked for information about the location of the nearest City storm sewer connection, whose responsibility it would be to connect this area of the community, and why the City had not installed storm sewers as was typically done in other areas. He said that drainage appeared to be a major issue for the neighbors, and he hoped the City could work through another process to solve the area's drainage issues. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 9 Regular Meeting Mr. Pap~, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved that the council hold the record open for written comment until May 2, 2003. Mr. Klein asked if Councilor Papa's motion was intended to hold the record open for the staff response to the council's questions or for anyone to submit additional testimony. Councilor Pap~ indicated he wished to hold the record open so that staff can ensure that all the e-mails and correspondence received by the council were in the record. Mr. Klein emphasized that the decision before the council was that of the process to be used, and suggested that if, like Councilor Meisner, other councilors had not received any communications related to the process, the communications received were not ex parte contacts related to the issue, and they did not need to be included in the record. Councilor Pap~ said that he was unsure that his experience was the same as Councilor Meisner's as he had yet to read all his e-mail. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Responding to a question from Councilor Taylor, Ms. Hansen clarified that the applicant's analysis was of on-site impacts. Councilor Taylor asked why staff objected to the PUD process. Ms. Hansen said that the issues were reviewed almost identically by the City, and the PUD did not significantly enhance the review of the issues involved. Councilor Taylor thought it was important to take as much time and effort as was needed for something that would affect the neighborhood personally. She thought the PUD provided maximum access to the neighborhood. She acknowledged Mr. Monk's comments about the cost of appeals. Councilor Taylor confirmed with Ms. Hansen that a professional design team was required under the PUD process. Ms. Hansen noted that the developers had retained the services of several professionals for the subdivision application, including a licensed engineer, a licensed geotechnical engineer, a licensed surveyor, and a landscape architect. Councilor Solomon determined from Ms. Hansen that the traffic and drainage issues would be addressed by the developer according to the City's requirements. Ms. Hansen added that the requirements for those issues were the same under the two processes. In response to a question from Ms. Solomon, Ms. Hansen confirmed that issues related to traffic and drainage should be taken up with the City, not the developer. Ms. Hansen said that the City would review what the applicant proposed, and it would either meet the standards, meet them with conditions, or not meet them at all. Councilor Solomon said she supported the process the City had in place at the current time and she supported the decision made by the Planning Director and the Planning Commission. Mayor Torrey called for a brief meeting break. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 10 Regular Meeting 4.ACTION: Resolution 4755 Adopting Amended Systems Development Charge Methodologies and Repealing the Systems Development Charge Methodologies Adopted by Resolution Nos. 4740 and 4748 Mr. Pap~, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to approve Resolution 4755 adopting amended Systems Development Charge Methodologies as amended by the four corrected pages of the Methodologies included as Attachment C to the agenda item summary and repealing the Systems Development Charge Methodologies adopted by Resolution Nos. 4740 and 4748. Data Services Manager Fred McVey of the Public Works Department asked the council to take action on the item, noting that two of the modifications being proposed had their origin in two advisory committees that had diverse representation, the Public Works Rates Advisory Committee and the Stormwater Systems Development Charge and User Fee Department Advisory Committee. He thanked the members of the committees for their time and effort. Mr. McVey reminded the council of the work sessions and public hearings conducted on the items, which resulted in some minor modifications to the proposed parks systems development charge (SDC) rate calculation. He said that the combined total increase would be about $277 for a typical single-family house, or about six percent. Even with the increase, Eugene's residential SDC rates would remain among the lowest four in Oregon of 16 mid-sized and large communities surveyed. Mayor Torrey called for comments from the council. Referring to the geographic adjustment proposed for the transportation SDC, Councilor Nathanson suggested it would be defensible to adopt something that matched the technical findings. She recalled staff's December presentation of Revenue-Neutral Scenario 2A, which had numbers more closely paralleling the technical analysis. That scenario was based on a 15 percent discount in Zone 1, and a 3 percent surcharge in zone 2. Councilor Nathanson expressed appreciation to staff for correcting the errors identified in the parks SDC calculation. Councilor Nathanson believed there was value to development outside the core. While she wanted to foster downtown development, Councilor Nathanson said that not all development needed to be downtown. Councilor Nathanson indicated interest in different percentages for the discount and surcharge associated with the geographic adjustment. Councilor Kelly thanked Roxie Cuellar of the Lane County Homebuilders Association for the testimony submitted. He thanked staff for incorporating some of the association's suggestions for changes in the recommendation before the council. Councilor Kelly supported the resolution as prepared, as he believed revenue neutrality was provided for in the transportation SDC recommendation. In addition, the resolution supported the MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 11 Regular Meeting City's Growth Management Study policies and provided a small incentive for downtown development. He noted Mr. McVey's comments about the size of the increase, and while he acknowledged that real money was involved, he thought it a bargain in that in exchange, the City supported its growth management policies and continued to provide the current level of parks service for current and new residents as well as a small incentive for downtown development. Councilor Solomon shared Councilor Nathanson's concerns about the geographic adjustment to the transportation and did not support it. She found the agenda item summary somewhat misleading in that the Public Works Rates Advisory Committee had not supported a geographic adjustment. According to members with whom she spoke, staff had not supported the adjustment either, and therefore found no basis for the adjustment. Concerning the parks SDC, Councilor Solomon said she was having a difficult time supporting an interim SDC as she preferred to await the outcome of the comprehensive parks planning effort. She supported the stormwater SDC because of its link to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Councilor Solomon suggested that the council vote on the four proposals separately. Councilor Solomon noted a telephone call she received from a small business owner who was assessed $170,000 in SDCs before she even opened her doors. She noted that Planning and Development Director Tom Coyle was working with her and the business owner on the issue. However, Councilor Solomon said, until she could understand how the City could reasonably assess a pet day care business $170,000 in SDCs, she would not support the proposed increases. Councilor Meisner shared some of the concerns about the parks SDC expressed by Councilor Solomon. He said that the increase was very high, and he was troubled by the fact that such SDCs were assessed only to residential construction. He supported the transportation SDC being proposed but was interested in staff comment regarding Councilor Nathanson's suggestion. He supported the wastewater and stormwater SDC increases. Councilor Meisner asked Mr. Klein to comment on the statutory limits on the SDC. Mr. Klein said that the Lane County Homebuilders Association had argued that the SDC must be based on the CIP, but the courts had not ruled to that effect, and the City's legal counsel had concluded that the statute did not require that. The State statute gave the City the discretion to base its SDCs on a CIP or on another basis, such as a level of service (LOS) basis, which was what staff proposed and which had served as the basis for the SDC in the past. Councilor Bettman said that there were essentially only two possible approaches, the project- based, or CIP approach, and the LOS approach. The Public Works Rates Advisory Committee had initially agreed to use the project-based approach to the transportation SDC, but at the behest of development interests on the committee, switched to an LOS approach. Referring to the proposed geographic adjustment, Councilor Bettman said that a majority of councilors had previously decided on the 20 percent reduction in the urban core and an increase of four percent in the periphery to address the clear relationship between longer trips and the need for capacity. She did not think the adjustment would discourage uses such as bakeries outside the core, and further noted that construction of such uses inside a nodal area would result in a ten percent discount of the SDC. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 12 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman said that the costs involved in constructing new capacity would be paid by residents in the form of higher taxes or fewer services if it was not paid by the development community. Councilor Pap~ preferred to address each SDC separately. He concurred with Councilor Solomon regarding the geographic adjustment to the transportation SDC saying that he did not think it would be revenue-neutral. He said that if the council wanted to create incentives for downtown development, it should do so without increasing the costs of development outside the core. Councilor Pap~ indicated a willingness to discuss Councilor Nathanson's suggested amendment. With regard to the parks SDC, Councilor Pap~ said he appreciated the information provided by staff but expressed disbelief at the soft costs involved. Councilor Poling also agreed with Councilors Solomon, Pap~, and Meisner. He noted his support for a project-based SDC. He said the proposed geographic adjustment to the transportation SDC was not supported by a 6:1 majority of the Public Works Rates Advisory Committee or the staff, and he considered it a bad idea for which there was no justification. He also supported separating the issues. Mayor Torrey invited the council to divide the issues if it wished to do so. Speaking to Councilor Bettman's remarks about the council's support for the geographic adjustment, Mayor Torrey pointed out that the council that supported the concept initially was no longer in place, and he thought it appropriate to consider the issue given the newly-constituted council. Mayor Torrey called for a second round of council comments. Speaking to Councilor Poling's remarks that there was no justification for the geographic adjustment, Councilor Kelly referred him to page 364 of the packet, which he maintained supported the geographic adjustment because it contrasted the average trip lengths generated for the core and the periphery and demonstrated lower average trip lengths at the core. Councilor Kelly acknowledged Councilor Papa's concerns about the revenue neutrality of the adjustment and suggested that changes could be made in two years during the scheduled review if that did not prove to be the case. Councilor Kelly spoke to the issue of using LOS versus a ClP, and said that some applaud the use of LOS for the transportation system SDC while decrying it for the parks system SDC. He said that "either it is or it isn't" a good thing. Councilor Kelly maintained that failure to pass the resolution, particularly in regard to the parks SDC, would send a message to the residents that they had the choice of paying more money for the same level of park service or expect lower service levels in the future. Speaking to Councilor Bettman's comments regarding the transportation SDC, Councilor Nathanson said there was considerable commercial property legally zoned for commercial uses for example located outside nodes, and that did not address the issue of west Eugene's lack of a bakery. What if a bakery did not want to locate in a node? She further pointed out that there were only 18 nodes in the entire city. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 13 Regular Meeting Responding to a process question from Councilor Nathanson, Mr. Klein advised the council to withdraw the motion on the floor and direct the manager to return with the appropriate resolutions if it wished to separate the issues. Councilor Pap~ indicated willingness to withdraw his motion. Councilor Nathanson indicated her assent to withdraw. Councilors Taylor and Bettman indicated objection to the proposed withdrawal of the motion. Mayor Torrey ruled that the motion remained on the floor. Councilor Bettman said the SDCs reflected the cost of growth pointing out that it cost money to provide infrastructure and services for new growth. The issue was, she said, who pays for the cost of that growth? She said not to support the increases was to shift those costs onto residents. Continuing, she noted that residents would have to accept fewer services, pay more in taxes, or pay more fees. She cited the transportation system maintenance fee as an example. The City was assessing $9 million annually to residents to pay for maintenance while using existing transportation resources to build new infrastructure to serve new growth when those costs should be paid by new growth. Councilor Bettman pointed out if the council adopted the increases, the City would still be in the lowest third of the state for SDCs. Councilor Taylor supported the resolution for the reasons cited by Councilor Bettman. She viewed the increase as modest and pointed out that the council had agreed previously it needed to assess part of the costs of growth to growth. Councilor Nathanson indicated opposition to the resolution because, while she acknowledged the cost of growth, she wanted to vote separately on each SDC, some of which she found appropriate, and some of which she disagreed with on the basis of the calculation. She concluded that the rates would be raised; the question was by how much. Councilor Solomon said that once built, roads become part of the inventory and must be maintained over time. The City lacked funding for that purpose, so it turned to the transportation system maintenance fee as an option. SDCs would never pay for all the costs of the roads, but they paid for their construction. Councilor Poling agreed that development should pay the costs of growth. However, he believed that the costs involved were extremely high and that there was something incorrect about the methodology. He said that in terms of comparing Eugene with other communities, he believed the comparisons being made were "apples and oranges," given the many variables involved. Each community made different choices, thereby making a comparison difficult. He indicated opposition to the resolution so the issues could be voted on separately. Roll call vote; the motion to adopt the resolution failed, 5:3; Councilors Kelly, Taylor, and Bettman voting yes. Councilor Pap~, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back a resolution related to the transportation SDC without a geographic adjustment. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 5:3; Councilors Pap~, Solomon, and Poling voting yes. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 14 Regular Meeting Councilor Pap~, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back a resolution related to the transportation SDC with a geographic adjustment as stated in the agenda materials. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:3; Councilors Pap~, Solomon, and Poling voting no. Councilor Pap~, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back a resolution related to the stormwater SDC as presented in the materials. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Pap~, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back a resolution related to the parks SDC as presented in the materials. Roll call vote; the vote on the parks SDC was 4:4; Councilors Meisner, Pap~, Poling, and Solomon, voting no; Mayor Torrey voted in opposition to the motion, and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. Councilor Pap~, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to direct the City Manager to return with a resolution for a lower parks SDC with appropriate accounting to justify it. Councilor Kelly said that it was his understanding that the SDC calculation was a numeric exercise. He believed that the council was making "an astonishing political statement" by directing staff to return with lower numbers. It was not proposing to change the number of ballfields for example, but just did not like the numbers. Councilor Bettman agreed with Councilor Kelly. She maintained that the council was responding to certain councilors' desires to have lower SDCs without any supporting methodology. The motion was counter to the council's policy related to full-cost recovery. She would oppose the motion. She might have supported a motion that allocated the costs of building parks capacity to commercial and office uses. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved that the staff return with a resolution regarding the parks SDC that charges the same amount but allocates those costs to all users, commercial, residential, office, and industrial. Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey regarding whether commercial and industrial uses could be included in the parks SDC, City Attorney Jerome Lidz indicated that including those users was legal if supported by the appropriate technical analysis. Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson said that the resolution could not be brought back quickly as the needed technical analysis could not be completed expeditiously. Councilor Bettman confirmed with Mr. McVey that there were other Oregon communities that assess a parks SDC to entities other than residential users. Councilor Pap~ suggested that the parks SDC be reconsidered when the comprehensive parks planning process was completed. He termed some of the costs he had reviewed "unreal," and he needed more background information to support the parks SDC as proposed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 15 Regular Meeting Councilor Nathanson expressed concern that the motion would defer a needed parks SDC increase. She was unsure she was prepared to delay a increase until the comprehensive plan was completed. Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. McVey said that incorporating commercial and industrial users in the calculation would be a more lengthy process. He said that the interim adjustment was intended to minimize the number of needed changes. There were no changes made to the methodology; only rate factors were updated. The inclusion of commercial and industrial users would require a change in the methodology, which he preferred to process with the Public Works Rates Advisory Committee. Responding to a question from Councilor Kelly, Councilor Bettman said she did not think the methodology needed to be reviewed by the Public Works Rates Advisory Committee. The council had the ultimate authority to make the needed policy decision now. Responding to a question from Councilor Kelly, City Manager Dennis Taylor recommended that the issue of including commercial and industrial properties in the parks SDC be processed by the Public Works Rates Advisory Committee (RAC). Speaking to comments about the comprehensive parks and open space update, Mr. Taylor believed that the council would receive recommendations from that longer term process about the efficacy of including those uses in the SDC as well. Councilor Bettman did not think the recommendation needed to go through the RAC and feared the result of adopting the motion would be to delay any increase in the parks SDC. She withdrew her motion with the assent of her second, Councilor Taylor. Councilor Taylor supported an interim parks SDC on commercial and industrial properties and wanted to know why that could not occur. Mr. McVey said that it could be done, but considerable analysis occurred through the RAC, and it took time. He confirmed that the parks SDC was still in the process of being reviewed by the Public Works Rates Advisory Committee. Councilor Meisner was concerned that in the absence of clear policy direction, the City would see no analysis of spreading the costs of new parks to other users. He appreciated what Councilor Bettman's motion attempted to do. Councilor Meisner asserted that the issue was being ignored by staff, the RAC, and the Parks and Open Space Committee. He said that in the absence of the motion, staff would consider it "permission to ignore" the issue. Councilor Meisner said he needed costs that could better persuade him. He perceived a need for an increase in the parks SDC, and found it regrettable that the council had "now effectively decided not even to consider" the issue of spreading the parks SDC to a larger user group. While he acknowledged Councilor Meisner's frustration, Councilor Kelly said it was his understanding that the issue of spreading the costs of parks to a larger group of users was already on the RAC's work plan. He suggested that the council could provide further policy direction to the committee with a motion directing it to include commercial and industrial users in the new SDC. He said would support such a motion. Councilor Pap8 endorsed Councilor Kelly's suggestion. Responding for a request for clarification regarding the motion from Mr. Carlson, Councilor Pap8 said that it was his preference to leave the parks SDC as it was, have it come back to the council MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 16 Regular Meeting including commercial and industrial users, and for staff to take the time to do it right. Mr. Carlson observed that was not the motion. Councilor Taylor asked how much the parks SDC increase would be reduced as a result of the motion. City Manager Taylor said that staff would have to review the issues that had been raised to determine if there was any room for a reduced recommendation using the existing methodology. Councilor Bettman hoped that in staff's attempts to address Councilor PapS's questions regarding the cost figures, it provided him with information about the projects in question and the people who participated in them to increase his trust level in the numbers coming from the RAC. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:3; councilors PapS, Solomon, and Poling voting no. Councilor Meisner, seconded by Councilor PapS, moved to direct the City Manager to pursue the imposition of parks SDCs on commercial, industrial, and office uses. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. PapS, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back a resolution related to the wastewater SDC as presented in the materials. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 17 Regular Meeting