Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 05/13/02 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall May 13, 2002 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: David Kelly, Gary Pap6, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Fart, Scott Meisner, Betty Taylor, Gary Rayor, Bonny Bettman. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A.Items from Mayor, Council, and City Manager Mr. Kelly noted his sadness to read of the closure of Rosen Products. He said he had used the firm as an example of a good local employer and its building as an example of good industrial design. He said the closure reminded the council that there were economic forces outside of its control. Mr. Kelly recollected that one of the council's action plans was to get a paper on economic development tools based on sustainability, and the paper had yet to be received. He asked for more information, and when a work session could be scheduled. City Manager Jim Carlson said that staff was working on the paper; he had seen a partial draft, and had a meeting later in the week with Planning and Development Department (PDD) staff to push it toward completion. Staff had many other issues to deal with and it was behind in this assignment. Mr. Kelly asked that staff attempt to schedule a work session sometime soon. Ms. Taylor hoped the City could get any taxes that Rosen Products owed it. She noted the success of Euphoria Chocolate and its connection to Lane Community College. She suggested the council put its money into the college instead of the Metro Partnership. Ms. Taylor noted an article in an April edition of the Eugene Weekly regarding the Sister City Program and quoted from the article about the importance of finding peace by recognizing differences and broadening Americans' contacts with other communities. Ms. Bettman asked that the economic development strategies at least refer to an inventory of existing economic development strategies at both the City and County level. Ms. Bettman clarified that her request regarding the Farmer's Market was for a small spot for a dozen vendors who think they could support the market for a longer time period. She was not seeking information on a year-round market. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 2002 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Bettman, speaking to the upcoming process session, requested a status report on the summary of motions passed during council meetings as requested at a previous process session. Mr. Carlson said he would follow up. Mr. Meisner regretted the closure of Rosen Products as well as the cessation of publication of the Business News. Mr. Meisner noted that the Public Safety Coordinating Council (PSCC) was considering police service delivery issues in the River Road/Santa Clara area, and expressed the hope that the PSCC was following the work of the River Road/Santa Clara Urban Services Committees, which had been studying the issue of service delivery in the area for more than a year. He noted two upcoming public forums scheduled by the committee. Mr. Meisner indicated his intent to offer a motion to change the operating agreements in terms of how councilors request a work session. He was proposing that when a councilor requested a work session, paper ballots be distributed to the council; if five councilors say no, the item would not be added to the schedule. If three councilors indicated support and the other councilors did not care, the item could be scheduled. Mr. Fart arrived. Ms. Nathanson provided a brief PowerPoint presentation of excerpts from a presentation she had seen on "Dubuque 2001," and noted similarities between what that community was working on and Eugene's current priorities. Mr. Farr determined from Mr. Carlson that three councilors had indicated support for a work session on air brakes. Mr. Carlson said that he would attempt to schedule the item when possible. Mr. Farr determined that there was only one written request for a work session on the City's smoking ordinance. He urged the council to reconsider the ordinance. Mr. Farr determined from Mr. Carlson that the City was moving forward with the condemnation of land near the train station adjacent to the Oregon Electric Station. He asked if the impact on the restaurant had been considered. Mr. Carlson said that staff was moving forward as directed by the council; he was unaware of how many parking spaces would be affected. Mr. Farr suggested the City was continuing to act to deter businesses from being in Eugene. Mr. Rayor had no items. Mr. Papd expressed appreciation to Mr. Farr for his comments and to Ms. Nathanson for her presentation. He asked if Dubuque had other tax revenues on which to fall back. Ms. Nathanson indicated that Dubuque received money from dog racing. Mr. Papd reported that the junipers in his parking strip were replaced by two beautiful new trees planted by NeighborWoods. He asked that his thanks be passed on to the program volunteers, and that the planter be returned to them for recycling. Mr. Papd suggested that the ward map with pictures of the councilors be placed in the Council Chamber so that people coming to testify can locate their house on a map and know who their councilor is. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 2002 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Pap~ offered thanks to Pat Rawlins, who spearheaded a drive to replace the police dog that was killed in an accident. Mr. Pap~ asked if there was a proposal to close Fire station 9. Mr. Carlson said no; staff proposed to move a piece of fire apparatus to a new location in Santa Clara. The Emergency Medical Services would remain in the station. As the City moved toward a permanent solution, the fire apparatus would be returned. Mayor Torrey had no items. Mr. Carlson noted that later in the evening the council would consider a Eugene Water & Electric Board bond issue, and staff learned earlier in the day that Standard and Poors had lowered the utility's bond rating slightly, from AA to AA-. The other bond rating agencies had not changed their ratings. Staff believed it had no effect on what the council was being asked to do. Mr. Carlson said he had also learned earlier that day Qwest filed an appeal of the recent Circuit Court decision awarding cities the withheld franchise fees. Mr. Carlson said that Jim Gangle of the Tax Assessor's Office had contacted the City with an outline of what he proposed to do in terms of reserving money, should Hynix's tax appeal be successful. B. Work Session: Status Update on Regional 2050 Study and the Willamette Valley Alternative Transportation Future Project Jim Croteau, Acting Assistant City Manager, joined the council for the item. He introduced a presentation by Jim Just of Friends of Linn County and 1,000 Friends of Oregon, noting it was developed in conjunction with the Governor John Kitzhaber's Willamette Livability Forum. Mr. Just provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled Willamette Valley Alternative Futures Project. He overviewed the process used to develop alternative futures for the Willamette Valley, noted the participants in the process, and described the alternative futures for the valley developed through the process. Mr. Just said the project was focused on how the valley could accommodate a doubling of population without sacrificing farm and forest land. The project considered both current the development pattern and a land conserving pattern. A third alternative, mapped but not analyzed, examined the valley's future without land use laws. Mr. Just reviewed key elements of the two alternatives, and noted that one key feature of the land conserving scenario was that no rural residential development would be allowed. Mr. Just reviewed a series of maps that illustrated different development densities in communities in the Portland area in 2050 using the two alternative scenarios. He also showed maps of the southern valley projecting densities under the two scenarios. He shared maps of those areas illustrating the impacts of the two scenarios on farm and forest land throughout the valley. Mr. Just said that if current development patterns continued, the valley would need to add 100,000 acres to urban growth boundaries to accommodate growth; the land conserving alternative could save 50,000 acres. He said that more efficient development in the larger cities was key to conserving land. He said that land MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 2002 Page 3 Work Session conserving scenario also saved $1.81 billion in capital infrastructure and maintenance costs, or 6.6 percent. He added that the forum did not attempt to quantify all costs. Mr. Just noted historic population increases and the impact those increases had on farmland, and said that the land conserving alternative would save an equivalent of 150,000 acres of farmland. Mr. Just discussed ways land could be used more efficiently, citing changes in zoning, mixed-use developments, and minimum lot sizes as examples. He showed the council a map showing the densities that would occur under a scenario without land use laws, emphasizing the amount of low-density development on rural lands outside urban growth boundaries. Mr. Just said that many choices lay ahead. Councilors thanked Mr. Just for the presentation. Mr. Croteau noted that the previous presentation focused on the entire valley; the next presentation focused on the local area. He invited remarks from Councilor Kelly, a member of the Region 2050 Advisory Committee. Mr. Kelly said that the study was a way to determine how to best accommodate growth in Lane County on a collective basis while recognizing the differences between communities. He said that it was exciting to see staff and elected officials from many jurisdictions work to find common ground. He had learned that there was a good deal of common ground between the people involved. Mr. Kelly pointed to the broad regional goals and objectives adopted by the participants as an example of that common ground. He said that the continuation of the effort was vital to a win-win solution. Mr. Croteau called attention to display materials posted around the room and tabloid materials included in the meeting packet, and said they would be used in various public information forums. Mr. Croteau provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled Regional 2050: Sustaining Quality of Life in the Southern 14Zillamette Valley. The presentation included background on the process, the geographic area involved, and the participating jurisdictions and agencies. Mr. Croteau shared demographic information related to population and population densities and growth rates in the various communities, including school growth rates. Mr. Croteau reviewed the process used by the committee to develop growth scenarios. He briefly reviewed the different scenarios developed by the advisory committee. Mr. Croteau noted the upcoming livability conference scheduled for June. He anticipated the development of more scenarios over the course of the year, and said the advisory committee would reach agreement on some strategies, with implementation in 2004. Mr. Croteau invited questions. Mr. Pap~ asked if coordination was occurring with Linn and Benton counties. Mr. Croteau said that the study as envisioned initially included the participation of those counties. However, the State did not approve the grant application that would have underwritten that cost, so the proposal was scaled back to Lane County alone. He added that there were things that could be done to share the information with those counties. Mr. Pap~ asked what those counties were doing. Mr. Croteau said they were involved in the Willamette Livability Forum. Mr. Just said that he was not aware of any countywide studies underway to address the issues related to growth. Mr. Croteau said that Salem-Keizer had discussed growth issues in that area. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 2002 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Rayor endorsed a process that brought all the involved parties to the table. He suggested that the issue came down to who pays, which made rural development problematic. He did not know what government agency could afford to support rural development in terms of such things as fire suppression services. He spoke to the importance of maintaining Eugene's environmental goals. He said that it did not work to "slap up clapboard" on a green field and move on. Referring to the first presentation, Ms. Nathanson expressed confusion about the terminology used and suggested, for example, that Mr. Just be consistent in his use of the term "dwellings" as opposed to "houses." Ms. Nathanson spoke to the desirability of infill development and questioned at what time redevelopment became desirable and economically feasible. She expressed interest in knowing how the State Building Code and administrative rules affected redevelopment and worked to encourage or discourage it, suggesting that the City might want to lobby the State for changes. Mr. Meisner, Chair of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations, asked Ms. Nathanson to send him a note reminding him of her interest in the State Building Code issue. Mr. Meisner thought there was merit to having the discussions with the participants involved in the 2050 project. He hoped that the results were worth more than the paper they were printed on. The strategies would not work in the Willamette Valley if cities acted to manage growth and counties would not. He was not optimistic about the County's willingness to manage growth. He said that the City had a considerable investment in the City's Growth Management Study policies, and implementation was slow, and neighborhood resistance toward densification great. Ms. Bettman said that the issue was not whether to grow, but how to grow. She liked the way the presentation highlighted the interdependence between rural and urban growth. She said that the way cities grow had an impact on how the county grew outside the urban growth boundary. If the City had the strength to implement density with design standards, it could avoid degrading livability inside Eugene and people would not want to move to the small cities nearby. Ms. Bettman said that if the City forced migration to the periphery and outlying areas, it would destroy the agricultural industry, which was a geographic-specific natural resource. She said that the community can invest in technology jobs like any other community, but it already had the farm land resource and should preserve those jobs as well. Mr. Farr thanked Mr. Kelly for spending time on the project. He noted his concurrence with the remarks of Mr. Meisner. He said that the competition for jobs and other forms of economic development will make it difficult for the cities to work together, let alone work with the rural areas. Ms. Taylor asked why the community had to accept the idea it had to grow that much. She thought that the City could have some control with the right policies. Those policies could make a difference in how much the community grew, and how fast. She concurred with Ms. Bettman about the importance of agriculture, and said having food sources close to where one lives was part of livability. Mr. Farr said that increasing the costs of living in Eugene would also drive people out of the community. C. Work Session: Ordinances Adopting West Eugene Parkway Plan Amendments: Ordinance No. 1: An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) to Include the Entire West Eugene Parkway Within the 20- MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 2002 Page 5 Work Session Year Financially Constrained Roadway Project List And to Make Related Amendments; Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan to Adopt Exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals 3, 4, 11 and 14; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date Ordinance No. 2: An Ordinance Amending the West Eugene Wetlands Plan to Redesignate Property Within the Modified Project Alignment of the West Eugene Parkway from Protect and Restore to Planned Transportation Corridor; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date The council was joined by Planning Director Jan Childs, Planning Commission President Jon Belcher, and City Attorney Jerome Lidz for the item. Also present were Public Works Director Kurt Corey, David Reinhard of the Public Works Transportation Division, Bob Pirrie, Mark Wigg, Karl Wieseke, and Tom Boyatt of the Oregon Department of Transportation (©D©T), and Tom Schwetz and Paul Thompson of the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). Ms. Childs distributed and reviewed the proposed procedures for the joint elected officials hearing of May 29, 2002. Ms. Childs responded to questions clarifying the process and noted the councilors' suggestions for process improvements. Ms. Childs reviewed the contents of the May 29 meeting packet, noting the inclusion of a letter from Bruce Warner of ©D©T requesting action by August 1, 2002. Mayor Torrey solicited council questions and comments. Mr. Rayor said that a summary of the commission's rationale would be useful. Ms. Childs encouraged the council to read the commission's minutes as well. Mr. Pap6 asked if the findings associated with the two ordinances were considered by the Planning Commission. Ms. Childs said that the draft findings were updated and revised based on the materials received at the hearing and the commission's discussion. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Ms. Childs said that the findings in the meeting packet were findings of consistency with the approval criteria. She said that typically, staff does not provide two sets of findings in legislative matters; the findings did not respond to the specific issues raised by the Planning Commission. She said that the commission would like the opportunity to expand on its rationale, which is why it planned to issue a minority report. Mayor Torrey also encouraged the council to listen to the Planning Commission meeting tapes to get a tenor of the commission's discussion. Ms. Bettman determined from Ms. Childs that questions could be sent to her for a written response via e-mail. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Childs said that some of the findings specific to the goal exception were prepared by consultants working for ©D©T. Those were exhibits C-1, C- 2, and C-3. The Exhibit C findings were prepared by staff. Mayor Torrey solicited further council comments and questions. Mr. Kelly indicated he had reviewed the ordinances and findings, and he was concerned that some of the findings opened the City to legal challenges. He noted that on adoption of MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 2002 Page 6 Work Session TransPlan, the City had to show conformance with the State Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The amendment moved the parkway into the plan and moved five other projects onto the futures list. Mr. Kelly said that the parkway alone in the absence of those projects would increase the daily vehicle hours of delay by about ten percent. He asked if that could be consistent with the TPR. Referring to page 10 of the findings for the TransPlan amendment, Mr. Kelly asked how the council could adopt the ordinances when it was stated the findings were still underway and not completed. Mr. Kelly referred to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan (WEWP) amendment, and the claim that mitigation would occur at the required ratios; he asked what the ratios required would be, and how that matched with the total acres to be mitigated. He asked where the land to mitigate the loss of wetlands would be found. Staff indicated that there were 43 acres available, and no other sites had been identified at this time. He said that those sites needed to be identified and shown in the findings to demonstrate consistency with the WEWP. Ms. Taylor said she was struck by the number of exceptions to the goals. She was most struck by the statement in the findings that the project meets recreational needs by getting people to recreation areas faster; she did not agree that met recreational needs. She said that the statement related to Goal 13 that indicated the situation would deteriorate further in the absence of the West Eugene Parkway (WEP) was not substantiated. Ms. Bettman called attention to a typographic error in Exhibit A, page 2, Finance Finding #2. She said that the reference to $1.031 million in federal forest receipts should be $1.031 billion. Ms. Bettman asked if there were other issues or decisions "brewing" at other government levels related to the WEP that the council needs to know about to avoid last-minute surprises. Ms. Childs suggested that the question was best directed to those agencies. She was not aware of any issues at this time. She said that one Springfield councilor had asked her whether ODOT would hold the funding if the parkway was appealed. That was a decision of the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) and ODOT staff did not know at this point. She noted that she had requested information from ODOT regarding the proposed mitigation plan and a formal statement that the northern alignment is the preferred alternative. Ms. Bettman said she heard there was meeting of the different jurisdictions and that several issues were raised at that meeting. If so, she wanted to know sooner than later. Ms. Childs said that LCOG convened a meeting of ODOT and the natural resource agencies, which she attended. Ms. Bettman reiterated her concern about the potential of other outstanding issues, and indicated that she would submit her question regarding last-minute issues in writing and asked that staff from the various disciplines in attendance at the LCOG meeting with awareness of any issues let the council know. Mr. Meisner had no questions or comments at this time. Ms. Nathanson asked Ms. Childs to point her to where in the packet an explanation of the topic was included. Ms. Nathanson suggested that the decision that lay ahead would either be a technical or political decision. It would be technical in that there were legal, financial, and policy-based issues the MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 2002 Page 7 Work Session council must address. It was political in that the council had policy tradeoffs to make and the voters to consider. She questioned which of the findings was better suited to address the failure of Measure 20-53. She did not believe the council had the money or voter approval to move ahead with findings in support of the measure, rather than the parkway. She asked where that point was addressed. Ms. Childs said that the commission had an extensive discussion of the refinement plan amendment criteria and the findings were subsequently revised as a result of the discussion; the commission concluded, by a vote of 4:3, that the criteria that applied was the new or amended community policies, based on the vote that was taken; that information was provided in the findings for both ordinances under the refinement plan criteria, TransPlan Exhibit C, beginning on page 17. Mr. Belcher said the vote was 4:3 because the commission could not agree if the policy was set by the council or the public. The commission subsequently concluded that it did not make much difference. Mr. Farr noted his long-time support for the parkway because he believed the environmental issues raised could be addressed and the parkway would improve traffic conditions in west Eugene. He said that most west Eugene residents agreed with him; it seemed to be south Eugene residents who disagreed. He anticipated the council would hear many disingenuous arguments on both sides of the issue, and urged that the council "cut through those" arguments. Mr. Rayor clarified the location of the findings in the packet with Ms. Childs. He asked for information about the permitting process and natural resource agency involvement, asking if there was a way to summarize the process and point to the agencies' input in the packet. He thought it would be worthwhile to show the acreage tradeoff between the wetlands acreage potentially affected by the parkway and wetlands to be mitigated. Mr. Rayor expressed interest in having information about the street connections to the west and east of Beltline. He noted that parkway was to be a limited access road with limited driveways. He noted that Phase 2 was intended to build a two-lane facility, and future phases would add lanes, and said that should be made clear. Mr. Pap~ thanked staff and acknowledged the work that had gone into the materials before the council. He confirmed the recommendations of the Lane County and Springfield planning commissions in support of the parkway. He said there appeared to be wetland vegetation in the area north of the railroad tracks, but it did not seem to be significant vegetation or wildlife area. Ms. Childs said that the map in question, which was produced at the time the Metro Plan was acknowledged, was included in Attachment A. However, what was more relevant was the fact that on April 18 the Division of State Lands issued its final order approving the November 2000 WEWP incorporating the amendments made by Lane County and Eugene as a wetlands conservation plan. That information superceded the wetland information in Map 3. Mr. Pap~ said that it was his understanding the quality of wetlands was lower in the northern alignment. Ms. Childs said that was the case. She confirmed a statement from Mr. Pap~ that the land, if in private hands, could be in farm use currently. Mayor Torrey also supported the parkway. He reviewed a series of questions he had e-mailed to Ms. Childs: · Can the council have the Planning and Development Department January 2, 2002, Layout 1 map, blown up with color, shown on the screen at the back of the Council Chamber during the hearing? MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 2002 Page 8 Work Session · Can the council have a copy of the 1992 West Eugene Wetlands Plan Map that identifies those highway or transportation projects that were allowed for when this plan was adopted? · Does the fact that the WEP is now north of the tracks and not south of the tracks matter? · If the WEP is not allowed, could Highway 126 be expanded to six lanes per the 1992 map? · Why was the WEP route moved from the south side of the tracks to the north side of the tracks? · Do all four bodies have the legal authority to meet the various standards and to provide findings that would allow us to proceed with the WEP? · What quantity and quality are the wetlands that will be disturbed by the WEP? · How many acres of wetlands have been purchased in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan area to date? · How many acres of wetlands have been restored? · Who and how will the funds be provided in order to restore and maintain the remaining purchased wetlands that have yet to restored? · Assuming that all of the potentially impacted wetlands were of the highest quality, are there adjacent wetlands, or wetlands that may be more suitable that have not been purchased, that could be purchased for mitigation purposes. Ms. Bettman asked what would happen to the money in TransPlan allocated to the postponed projects in the case of a legal challenge; did that mean that nothing would be built? Ms. Childs referred Ms. Bettman's question to ©D©T. Ms. Bettman asked who paid for the mitigation required by the parkway, the ongoing maintenance, and the estimated cost. Ms. Childs said that the answer to the first two parts of the question was ©D©T, and she referred the last part of the question to ©D©T. Mr. Rayor requested a summary of the lands purchased with Land and Water Conservation Fund owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). He asked that all future new road connections be showed on an area map as well. Mr. Kelly asked ©D©T to state when the parkway would be fully constructed if the plan amendments were approved at the local level. He asked if ©D©T had responded to the questions asked by BLM of ©D©T previously. Ms. Childs noted that BLM was a cooperating agency for the ElS, and those questions must be addressed. Mr. Kelly wanted to know when. He said that it seemed unfair of ©D©T to put the council in the position of making a decision without saying how it would respond to the BLM's concerns. Ms. Nathanson raised the issue of the private and public investments and the zoning decisions made in west Eugene on the basis that the parkway would be constructed. She asked staff to explain where in the packet that issue was addressed; to the extent investment plans were altered, was the City effectively reducing its inventory of industrial property by not building the parkway? Ms. Childs said that the issue was not addressed in the City's findings, although it was touched upon somewhat by the ©D©T findings. Mr. Pap~ referred to the letter the City received from the Department of Land Conservation and Development related to the council's action of October 13, 2000, when it declined to initiate the plan amendments needed to facilitate the parkway, and requested more information from that agency regarding what it would require of the City if the parkway does not proceed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 2002 Page 9 Work Session Mayor Torrey said that the OTC was meeting the following day; the mayors of Springfield and Eugene and a representative of the Lane County Board of County Commissioners were asking the OTC to the fund Phase 2 of the I-5/Beltline intersection project, and if successful, that could take $22 million off the total needed to fund the projects that would be postponed if the amendments were approved. He noted that two of the four Eugene projects listed in TransPlan were related to the WEP; if there was an appeal, those projects could not go forward pending the outcome of the appeal. Mayor Torrey hoped people would remember that between the time the community began this discussion and now, the community had recovered $18 million of the existing funding gap from the Oregon Transportation Investment Act and did not have to defer several projects. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 7:51 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Carlson City Manager pro tern (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 2002 Page 10 Work Session