Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 05/28/03 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room-City Hall May 28, 2003 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gary PapS, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon In the absence of Mayor James D. Torrey, Council President Pap8 called the meeting to order. A.WORK SESSION: Eugene Goal 5 Riparian and Upland Inventory City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced the item, noting that Neil Bj0rklund of the Planning and Development Department would make the staff presentation. Mr. Bj0rklund provided a brief history of the item, noting its inception in the inventory developed for the metropolitan-wide Natural Resources Special Study in 1992 and reviewing the progress of the effort as it evolved throughout the 1990s, culminating in the proposed ordinances adopting criteria for determining the Goal 5 inventory within the Eugene city limits and urban growth boundary (UGB). Speaking to the ordinances before the council, Mr. Bj0rklund said that Goal 5 was one of the Statewide planning goals and the City was required to do the inventory as part of the State's periodic review of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. He said that the Eugene Planning Commission had reviewed various options for proceeding following a December 2002 public hearing, and after deliberation had recommended that the City Council retain the criteria previously reviewed by the council and commission. Staff had recommended some small changes to the criteria to make their intent more clear. Mr. Bj0rklund said that those corrections resulted in no changes to the inventory. Mr. Bj0rklund reviewed the process of Goal 5 inventory adoption. Mr. Pap8 solicited council questions and comments. Responding to a question from Mr. Poling regarding the impact of the Goal 5 inventory on the City's buildable lands inventory, Mr. Bj0rklund indicated additional analysis would be required to tell Mr. Poling how many acres of land in the Goal 5 inventory would be protected and thus removed from the City's inventory of buildable lands. He did not have that information at hand. Mr. Poling asked if staff could estimate the completion time line for the "safe harbor" process and the standard inventory process allowed under Oregon Administrative Rule. Mr. Bj0rklund said the major difference between the two processes was the analysis that occurred between adoption of the inventory and the implementation of regulations, which was not required under the safe harbor process. He could only make general estimates about the time required. He estimated that the Economic, Social, Environment, and Energy (ESEE) analysis required for the standard inventory approach to upland and riparian sites could be done in six months. He said that both processes MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 2003 Page 1 Work Session required additional public hearings for the adoption of regulations. Mr. Bj0rklund said that the safe harbor provisions were very proscriptive in terms of resulting regulations, and the City would be required to do code amendments to meet those provisions of the law. The City could use its existing code protections for the standard inventory process. He believed the difference in time between the two processes was in the range of months rather than years. Mr. Poling asked Mr. Bj0rklund to contrast the cost of the two processes. Mr. Bj0rklund said staff assumed that the work associated with either process could be done with the existing staff and existing budget, and the department did not intend to ask the council for more money to complete the effort. Ms. Bettman asked Mr. Bj0rklund to estimate the length of each process before the City had a Goal 5 inventory with some protections. Mr. Bj0rklund clarified that sites were not protected until the inventory was completed and regulations adopted and applied. The work needed would potentially be completed in a year under either process. He pointed out that the public review and adoption process was a variable that affected the time line. He noted that under the safe harbor approach, the City would be dealing with about ten percent of the sites it was addressing under the standard inventory process as the safe harbor approach prescribed what sites were included in the inventory. Ms. Bettman recalled that the process started in 1992, and now the metropolitan area was still at Step 1. The process had taken more than a decade to this point. She asked how long the remaining five steps would take to accomplish. Mr. Bj0rklund clarified that the council would see the next five steps as a single action. Those steps involved the evaluation and analysis process. The council would review the inventory with recommendations for each site, suggested protection measures for each site, and proposed new regulations if staff determined those were needed. Assuming the City could use existing regulations and did not need to do code amendments, Mr. Bj0rklund estimated that the work could be done in a year. He attributed the length of the process to this point to the fact that previously, all three jurisdictions had to reach agreement on the various subtasks. Now Eugene was proceeding on its own and did not have to negotiate with the other jurisdictions for identical provisions. Ms. Bettman asked how the council could determine whether changes to the code would be needed if that could be done before the public hearing. Mr. Bj0rklund said that without knowing the nature of the resources to be protected and their location, it was impossible to say whether existing regulations would address them. While provisions such as the City's waterside setbacks could be adequate for most waterways, without knowing more about specific sites he could not say with certainty that any of the sites to be protected could be protected using existing regulations. Ms. Bettman said that there was public testimony commenting on steps 2-5, specific to the impact on specific properties. She questioned whether that testimony was relevant to the council's decision at this stage of the process. Mr. Bj0rklund said it was relevant to the question of whether a property was removed from the inventory. If a property was removed, it was no longer being considered for protection through the Goal 5 process. He said that the decision before the council now was not whether to protect properties, but whether to study them further. Mr. Meisner asked what had been spent to this point on the study and the source of funding and staffing. Mr. Bj0rklund indicated that he did not know the total cost of the study. Mr. Meisner wanted that information, from the beginning of the process (1992) to this point. He asked how Eugene compared to what other jurisdictions in the state were doing. He asked if the Eugene- MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 2003 Page 2 Work Session Springfield area was doing more than others were. He requested a jurisdictional comparison of effort and cost. Mr. Meisner asked about the cumulative effect of the City's various planning efforts on the buildable lands inventory. He asked if the net outcome of the study would be a recommendation that the UGB be expanded. He asked for a sense of the coordination between various planning efforts such as the storm water and natural resources planning efforts. Mr. Bj0rklund indicated that coordination was occurring. Mr. Meisner wished that the agenda materials had stated that fact. Mr. Kelly commended the packet materials, saying that they answered his questions. Mr. Kelly emphasized the lapse in the process had been caused by delays from other jurisdictions. During the time of those delays, no money had been spent. He believed that there might be a potential impact on the UGB and not all land could be protected. However, he pointed out that nothing being contemplated at this stage of the process demanded that anything be protected. Mr. Kelly believed that was the main focus of public confusion. The inventory simply stated that a site had sufficient significance to be studied further. Mr. Kelly said that the process made him think of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan, during which wetlands were identified and then reviewed on a parcel-by-parcel basis so balance and predictability were achieved. He said that the analysis would look at many factors, including the impact of protecting sites on the buildable lands inventory. Ms. Solomon expressed concern about the time that had been spent on the Goal 5 inventory and the time needed to complete the process. She did not think that the process could be completed in the time suggested by staff. In the meantime, there was considerable uncertainty and community anxiety, as reflected in the testimony. There was concern about how the properties in the inventory were identified given the age of the aerial photographs used. Ms. Solomon noted that there were about 6,000 tax lots involved in the inventory, which she found staggering. She said that the next opportunity for public input would not be until the end of the process, during which time the public would have to wait. Ms. Solomon thought that was unfair. She believed that there were parallel planning efforts occurring that tied up land, citing the Goal 5 inventory and parks and open space planning efforts, and called for better coordination between those efforts. Ms. Solomon acknowledged the Goal 5 inventory was part of the State-mandated periodic review and asked what projects were on hold until the review was completed. Ms. Solomon believed the City must be prepared to purchase land devalued by the process, and the City did not have that kind of money in the budget. Ms. Solomon advocated for use of the safe harbor approach. She said that the City needed to prioritize its expenditures, and she preferred to spend money on the Land Use Code Update and nodal development planning rather than the standard inventory process. Ms. Taylor recalled that the council had a discussion of the two approaches and a council majority decided on the standard inventory approach. She determined from Mr. Bj0rklund that Springfield had not yet decided which process to use, and that Lane County had agreed to use the safe harbor approach. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 2003 Page 3 Work Session Speaking to Ms. Solomon comments about property owners' level of anxiety, Ms. Taylor said that there was also anxiety on the part of the environmental community that a proposal to protect a property could lead a property owner to destroy its natural resource values. She observed that there appeared to be an internal conflict between what people wanted; they said they wanted to protect their property and wanted to retain it in its current state, but they did not want to be told that they might not be able to build on it someday. She thought part of the answer could be environmental easements, and hoped that the council soon discussed such easements and tax incentives for such properties to help protect the natural resource values they contained. Ms. Taylor asked Mr. Bj0rklund to comment on the safe harbor process and why some people thought it better. Mr. Bj0rklund said that some considered it a shorter process with a clearer outcome. The approach provided some options; it could be applied to certain sites or certain classes of sites, and the standard inventory process could be applied to others. It could be applied to one type of resource and not another. He suggested that the council might want to have a more detailed discussion of those options in the future. Mr. Bj0rklund said that safe harbor approach was not an "all or nothing" approach. Ms. Taylor did not think the council needed to reconsider the approach it took to the inventory given the time changing the process would take. She thought that generally, the safe harbor approach provided for "more loopholes." Mr. Bj0rklund said that rather than stating the approach provided more loopholes, he would characterize the approach as very prescriptive; the process would take about 90 percent of what was currently included in the Goal 5 inventory out of the inventory. The safe harbor approach did not provide for discretion as to which sites were studied further unless mixed with the standard inventory approach. Ms. Taylor asked if the City could protect the sites on the inventory or partially protect them from those who might be interested in degrading the natural resource values of a site to take it out of the inventory. Mr. Bj0rklund said that the Oregon Administrative Rule for Goal 5 allows local jurisdictions to apply interim protection measures for up to 120 days. Mr. Pap8 asked if there would have been any time or cost savings from continuing the joint jurisdictional effort. Mr. Bj0rklund said that at this point, no. If the jurisdictions had agreed at various points in the process, it would have been resource-efficient to process the inventory as a whole. That had been the goal early in the process. Eventually, the jurisdictions "agreed to disagree." Mr. Pap8 asked if the potential for collaboration and the establishment of consistent criteria were beyond hope. Mr. Bj0rklund believed that the process was beyond the need for that. There was now no benefit to agreeing on the same thing. He noted that there were sites on the inventory that must be co-adopted by Lane County, which required coordination with that body. Responding to a question from Mr. PapS, Ms. Childs indicated that the City would have to develop regulations associated with the inventory to address the code amendments related to Goal 5 remanded by the Land Use Board of Appeals. Ms. Nathanson asked Mr. Bj0rklund if he envisioned the staff recommendation could be for a combined approach involving the safe harbor and standard inventory approach. Mr. Bj0rklund said that it was possible. He said that the City had a range of options under Goal 5, and could use both approaches as tools to get the municipality to where the council wanted it to go. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 2003 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Nathanson believed that solutions were often a combination of trying to do what was best for all parties with different interests and what was possible and practical. She asked Mr. Bj~rklund to speculate on how the Planning Commission might react if the council chose a combined approach. Mr. Bj~rklund said that the Planning Commission had briefly discussed the safe harbor approach but had not discussed a combined approach. He noted that staff had introduced an alternative for the commission's consideration that included the standard inventory process with revised criteria so the inventory would be somewhat smaller. Ultimately, the Planning Commission decided it did not want to shrink the inventory at this stage of the process and decided to recommend all the sites go forward to the ESEE analysis stage. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to extend time for the item by ten minutes. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Meisner voting no. Mr. Pap~ solicited a second round of council comments and questions. Ms. Bettman acknowledged that people needed certainty about the future of their properties but pointed out that to this point, no property was tied up or protected. She asked if staff knew the percentage of the original Goal 5 inventory that had been developed. Mr. Bj~rklund said not precisely, as the original inventory was hand-drawn. He said that when one contrasted the old map to the new map, one would be able to identify the land that had developed since the late 1980s. He estimated that it was a relatively small percentage of the entire inventory of sites, totaling about 200 acres. Ms. Bettman said that in the meantime, people could do what they wanted with their properties until the sites were protected, and she believed that protection was a long way off. Ms. Bettman did not think residents supported intensive boundary-to-boundary development and believed that they recognized natural resources as an amenity. She reiterated that the process to this point had not resulted in the protection of a single acre. She said that, given the time the process had taken to this point, she began to wonder if the amount of land that would be protected by the safe harbor approach would be the same amount that would be protected by the standard inventory approach. Ms. Bettman requested information on the progress the other jurisdictions had made with their approaches and how close they were to adoption of an inventory. Mr. Kelly spoke to the issue of certainty for property owners, saying he agreed that was needed and the next steps in the process were intended to provide that certainty. He thought changing the approach would add to the time line as well as the levels of community uncertainty and anxiety. Mr. Kelly recalled that many councilors had recently praised the City's professional staff and Planning Commission and urged others to honor their work, and now the same councilors were suggesting that the approach supported by staff needed to be reconsidered. He said that either one did or did not have trust in staff. With regard to the safe harbor approach, he noted that the council had voted unanimously to use the standard approach in 1997 and in 2001. Staff had implemented the council's direction, and he questioned throwing that time and effort out of the window. He asked what had changed since 2001. Mr. Kelly also asked City Manager Dennis Taylor to comment at some time in the future about the value of some continuity in policy versus the value and challenge of switching between policy approaches. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 2003 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Solomon asked what other projects could not be done pending resolution of the inventory. Mr. Bj0rklund said that outreach related to the implementation of protective regulations for Chinook salmon in the Willamette River was pending resolution of the inventory. Ms. Solomon determined from Mr. Bj0rklund that staff could complete the safe harbor process inside the year depending on the council's schedule. Mr. Bj0rklund reiterated that the Goal 5 rules proscribe the protection measures that were adopted. If those did not match well with existing City regulations, code amendments would be required, pushing the time line out further. Ms. Solomon believed that going through the code amendments process seemed more achievable than completing the standard inventory process. Speaking to Mr. Kelly's comments, Ms. Nathanson indicated she had not made a decision about whether a different approach was needed and intended to listen closely to the public's testimony. She said that, with regard to Mr. Kelly's request that the City Manager comment to the council on policy consistency, she did not think the council's unanimous vote represented a decision on the approach to be taken but rather direction to the staff. It was the council's job to determine what to do next. Based on that earlier direction and on new information, she thought it would be valuable to consider a combined approach, and she wanted to hear more about it. Mr. Pap8 said he would also like to hear more about the potential of using a combined approach. He questioned again whether the Goal 5 ordinances must be in place before the City could address the LUBA remands related to Goal 5. Ms. Childs again said yes. Mr. Pap8 shared the concerns expressed by others about the impact of the inventory on the buildable lands inventory and the UGB. B.WORK SESSION: Stormwater Program City Engineer Mark Schoening joined the council for the item. Public Works Department Director Kurt Corey and Data Services Manager Fred McVey were also present for the item. Mr. Schoening provided an update on the staff's review of the goals and policies in the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Program (CSWMP) and their relationship to the City's National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, discussed major program elements and activities in CSWMP and their relationship to the NPDES permit, and outlined an administrative process staff was going through to prepare for the fiscal year (FY) 2005 budget process and a projected $2 million funding gap. Mr. Schoening called the council's attention to the attachments in the agenda packet: Attachment A, which was a summary of the CSWMP goals and policies and the implementation measures for each policy, and Attachment B, a summary of the Stormwater Program by major program element. Mr. Schoening reviewed the attachments. Mr. Schoening discussed the proposed 50 cent rate increase in stormwater fees and provided an update on the public outreach that occurred regarding the increase. He noted that a public hearing on the administrative order was scheduled on June 13, 2003. Mr. Schoening reported on recent program acquisition activity, reporting that seven sites totaling 33 acres and costing about $700,000 had been purchased to implement the stream corridor acquisition effort. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 2003 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Schoening invited questions. Ms. Nathanson said the information in the packet was very responsive to her questions and she found it helpful. She asked if Attachment B could be translated to a pie chad or some other graphic representation for easier interpretation. She noted that she had wanted to know where the City should be spending its money, and staff had recommended education as a high priority. She noted that public education as reflected in Attachment B was a very small expenditure compared to some other program costs, and she suggested that the department might want to shift some resources from another area to supplement its educational efforts. Ms. Nathanson had other questions about several categories, including land use development plan review, which included the largest number of employees. She also had questions about the amount of money the City was spending on street sweeping, asking if the City would jeopardize water quality, road preservation, pedestrian and bicycle safety, and appearance by reducing that cost by a certain amount. Ms. Nathanson also had concerns about the size of the central service allocation (CSA) paid by the program. Mr. Schoening reported that in terms of the category of land use development plan review, the costs of privately engineered public improvements were fully recovered through the Professional Services Fund. The services delivered by staff at the Permit and Information Center were also completely covered by the permit fees charged by the City and activity levels depended on construction activity. Mr. Meisner also appreciated the information provided. He said he would be interested in exploring how the City could accomplish service level reductions while still maintaining its goals. He wanted things done more efficiently. He said that through the program, the City was acquiring stream corridors at such a rate that it would consume its reserves and then, without a public process, impose what amounted to a tax increase. He was concerned that those actions had occurred outside any prioritization process. Mr. Meisner noted that when he had questions about the program, he did not know who to call. There was no listing in the City telephone directory for the program. He did not know who the employees were or what was being paid for. He characterized the program as a "mystery money program" with commendable goals but thought that in terms of coordination with other efforts, the City had "jumped the gun" with acquisitions and the fee increase without the needed analysis. Ms. Bettman asked if staff had determined the current program was adequate to fulfill the City's obligations under the NPDES permit. Mr. Schoening said yes. Ms. Bettman asked how a green infrastructure compared to conventional "pipe and fill" infrastructure in terms of effectiveness and cost. She requested a matrix that compared those costs. Mr. Schoening said that staff could provide information on an academic level using studies that demonstrated green infrastructure was cheaper in the long term, but it would be more difficult to calculate on the basis of the actual system in place. Most of the system was already constructed and there was already a combined approach in place that was likely to be in place in perpetuity. Ms. Solomon asked if it was fair to say that Attachment B represented a fully funded stormwater program. Mr. Schoening clarified that the attachment reflected everything that was occurring now. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 2003 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Solomon recalled that the council asked staff to return with a picture of what the program would look like with a reduced fee. Mr. Schoening recalled that the mayor had suggested that the City needed to decide whether that was a feasible option. He was suggesting that additional cuts would not be feasible, and to reduce the program by $2 million would already require the City to negotiate the conditions of the NPDES permit with the Department of Environmental Quality. He did not think the City would be able to reduce the costs by more and still successfully negotiate changes in the permit. Mr. Kelly commended the background materials as informative. He liked the idea of the two boundary conditions proposed by staff (determine the necessary user fee increase to fully fund the current program and determine the service level reductions necessary to meet the current user fee revenue) and looked forward to the additional staff analysis. Mr. Kelly asked that when staff examines the current funding picture, it keep in mind being responsive to all of the main objectives of CSWMP. Speaking to Mr. Meisner's comments, Mr. Kelly pointed out that the decision to proceed with acquisitions was a council decision, not a staff decision. Staff had analyzed the potential sites for acquisition and there were several priorities for stream corridor acquisition. He asked if all of the potential sites would be purchased during the three years the rate increase was in effect. Mr. Schoening said no. Mr. Kelly concluded that what the council had decided to do merely purchased a portion of the high-priority sites. Ms. Taylor agreed with Mr. Kelly's summation of the council's action, saying she continued to support stream corridor acquisitions. Her one concern was that the City was dealing with willing sellers only. Some of the highest priority streams did not have willing sellers, and she thought the council should consider condemnation to acquire them. She recalled that the council had also spent considerable time discussing the merits of a green infrastructure, and believed that the environmental benefits of that approach had more merit than just the cost savings. She confirmed with Mr. Schoening that staff sought out opportunities to incorporate green infrastructure in the system. Ms. Taylor thought the City was taking the right approach and only wanted to know how the acquisitions could be done faster. Mr. Pap8 asked if stream corridor acquisition funds were segregated in a separate fund and if so, what the balance of the fund was. Mr. Schoening indicated the funds were not segregated, but tracked in the capital budget. He was unsure of the balance. Mr. Pap8 hoped the council held another work sesssion on the topic and requested information on the fund balance at that time. Mr. Pap~ wanted to see what a Stormwater Program that cost $8 million would look like. He asked that the acquisition map be updated to illustrate the status of the City's priorities. Mr. Pap8 solicited a second round of comments. Ms. Nathanson thought the stormwater program's budget needed to be reexamined, noting that every other program area experienced budget reductions. She also wanted to see a smaller program budget, and asked if Eugene would endanger its NPDES permit by reducing the budget or if the City could negotiate with the federal government around its BMPs. Ms. Nathanson thought staff was on the right track and was pleased by the careful analysis that had been done, but suggested that changes might be needed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 2003 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Bettman said that no matter what the City did, it would have to invest in its infrastructure to provide stormwater management for new development. If the City could provide that service and do so in a way that avoided ongoing maintenance costs, that was the benefit of a green infrastructure approach. She indicated interest in seeing the academic analysis of costs referred to by Mr. Schoening. Mr. Meisner shared the interest expressed by other councilors in a smaller program budget. He said that his concern related to the stream corridor acquisition program was the lack of analysis of the entire set of resources the City might protect. The priorities were compared to no other resources in the City's natural resources inventory, which he considered a mistake. He preferred to delay or repeal the rate increase. Mr. Pap~ adjourned the meeting at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 2003 Page 9 Work Session