Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/19/02 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session Council Chamber--Eugene City Hall June 19, 2002 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: David Kelly, Gary Pap~, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Farr, Scott Meisner, Betty Taylor, Gary Rayor, Bonny Bettman. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. Mayor Torrey introduced visitors Catherine Klotz from Germany and Hannah Marika Matrunin from Finland, who were spending the day with him learning what it was like to be a mayor in the United States. He said that Ms. Klotz was currently teaching at the University of Oregon and Ms. Matrunin is a graduate student. He encouraged the council to talk with the visitors to hear their perspective on what the City should be doing. Toby Potter, State Vice Commander, American Legion, introduced the 2002 Beaver Boys State Mayors. The mayors introduced themselves, identified the Boys State town they represented, and noted their home town and high schools. Matt McLaughlin, Beaver Boys State staff and representing American Legion Post 158 of Tigard, noted the mayors had recently completed their junior years in high school and they were a "great bunch of boys." He thanked the council for hosting the Beaver Boys State mayors. Mayor Torrey noted that he recently returned from a meeting of mayors in Madison, Wisconsin, and had learned that the community of Madison had many of the same issues as Eugene had. Mr. Rayor entered the meeting. Mayor Torrey called a brief recess. He reconvened the meeting at 12:10 p.m. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2002 Page 1 Work Session A. 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-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 City Manager pro rem Jim Carlson introduced the item. He called on the council to make a decision on the amendments before it. He reminded the council that the Oregon Department of Transportation (©D©T) had asked the local adopting officials to take action by August 1, 2002, to maintain the State funding allocated to Unit I-A of the West Eugene Parkway (WEP). He said that staff was ready to return with the findings needed to move the project forward on July 8, 2002. Mr. Carlson noted that the amendments in question were a legislative matter. The proceeding was not quasi-judicial. Ms. Childs said that the materials received during the process were listed on pages 4 and 5 of the agenda item summary, included in the meeting packet. She noted that the reference copies were available in the Council Chamber. Ms. Childs said that at the councilors' places, there were two documents: 1) a corrected response to question 149 on page 10 of Response Document 2; and 2) the criteria for approval of the plan amendments. Ms. Childs reported that the local land use process must be completed before the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) can take action to complete the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). She said that while local approval was necessary for the federal process to be completed, it did not guarantee approval by the relevant federal regulatory agencies, or guarantee a wetlands fill permit would be issued by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and Division of State Lands (DSL). In the case of local action, the adopting officials must look to local approval criteria in evaluating the amendments. Ms. Childs reported that staff had prepared draft findings prior to the advisory committees' public hearings in February, and revised those hearings in response to public testimony and the extensive review done by the Eugene Planning Commission. Staff recommended that additional revisions to the findings be made based on public testimony and the response to the adopting officials' questions prior to its actions in July. She said that many questions that were asked were related to mitigation of wetlands to be filled as part of the project. Those questions must be addressed prior to federal regulatory approval. She clarified that a mitigation plan was not required by the West Eugene Wetlands Plan (WEWP) prior to designation of property as a planned transportation corridor. Rather, the WEWP specifies the mitigation requirements that must be met prior to issuance of a fill permit. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2002 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Childs acknowledged the many staff that worked on the amendments process, listed on page 2 of Response Document 2. She thanked the many people who submitted testimony during the process, and for the general civility of people throughout the process. Mayor Torrey solicited council comments. Ms. Bettman spoke to the amendments proposed to TransPlan. She said that if the money was in place for the parkway project, she did not see why other projects should be removed from TransPlan. She said the community should go forward with all the projects and let those who said the money was there "show us the money." Ms. Bettman said that the Development State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) indicated the project included a leg to Veneta. She said that given the more extensive magnitude of the project, she was beginning to agree that the project was regional in nature, and questioned why the vote did not include the entire county. She said that the eastern leg of the project was not included in the TransPlan amendments, and given th th the congestion that existed on 6 and 7 avenues, it seemed to her that soon after the process was completed the community would be looking at connecting the eastern terminus to 1-105, "blasting through the Whiteaker neighborhood." She said if TransPlan was to be amended, the entire project should be looked at comprehensively. Ms. Bettman cited outstanding issues yet to be resolved, including the revised findings, the mitigation plan for the wetlands, and the hydrology report. Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor regarding the lack of a parkway corridor in Map 3 of the WEWP, Ms. Childs said that the parkway corridor was intentionally not added to the map during the last amendments process. At that time, there was a footnote to the adopting ordinance that stated those amendments were not going forward at that time because the preferred alternative for the Parkway had not yet been selected. At that time, the Eugene and Lane County planning commissions had reviewed the northern alignment corridor and had recommended approval of the application of the planned transportation corridor designation. However, the selection of the northern alignment as the preferred alternative had not been made at that time, making it seem as though the designation was premature; it was deferred to this process. Mr. Rayor determined from Ms. Childs that approval of the amendments would amend Map 3 with the designation. Mr. Rayor asked if the parkway was mentioned in the WEWP. Ms. Childs did not know if the parkway was called out. However, the projects in TransPlan when the WEWP was adopted that would not be carried forward for consideration as a planned transportation corridor were listed in a WEWP appendix. Ms. Childs added that Response Document 1 included a copy of the map from the 1992 WEWP that showed the southern alignment designated for development to allow construction of the parkway. Mr. Kelly asked if a copy of the map of the parkway route on display in the Council Chamber could be made available to the council. Mr. Reinhard said yes. Mr. Kelly said that four advisory bodies were involved in reviewing the amendments, and three of those bodies spent an hour or less on the issue; conversely, the Eugene Planning Commission spent "hours and hours" reviewing the details of the law, and subsequently had voted overwhelmingly that the amendments did not meet adopted laws or policies. He thought the Eugene commission's recommendation should be given more weight. Mr. Kelly advocated for making the findings available to the council and the public before July 4, 2002. He was concerned that there would be insufficient time for review. Ms. Childs believed the MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2002 Page 3 Work Session findings could be adopted as they stood, but that some revisions should be made since the issue will be litigated. Mr. Kelly suggested the findings be placed on the City's Web site and a press release issued. Ms. Childs concurred. Mr. Kelly said that given the length of the process, he was disturbed the public did not have answers to the "simplest" of questions, for example, when will the parkway be done? Assuming things move forward smoothly, Response Document 2 indicated construction would commence in 2005, and end in 2020. He did not think the voters would be happy with that answer. Mr. Pap8 asked Ms. Childs what changes she recommended to the findings. Ms. Childs said that additional policies in the WEWP and the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) were being reviewed by legal counsel as a result of the questions from the elected officials. She did not anticipate wholesale revisions to the ordinances before the council. Mr. Pap8 asked staff to speak to the issue of funding. He said he understood there was potential for more funding as a result of the two Oregon Transportation Investment Acts (OTIA), and asked how funding would be incorporated into TransPlan. Ms. Childs said that would occur through the three-year TransPlan update process. Mr. Carlson noted that the State stipulated that only those projects ready to proceed qualified for OTIA money, and the only local project to qualify was the I- 5/Beltline project. Receipt of the money for that project merely changed the financial constraint calculation in TransPlan, so the timing of other projects would not be affected by the three-year update. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. PapS, Mr. Carlson said that staff had assumed the OTIA I moneys in developing the current proposal for TransPlan amendments. In regarding to the question of when the WEP would be built, Mr. Carlson said that during the triennial review of TransPlan, the elected officials would review what had been accomplished and what the financial constraint analysis indicated. If new money was available and projects had been completed, the elected officials could consider bringing some of the projects on the Futures List onto the financially constrained list. Those projects would then compete with the other parkway phases for funding. Mr. Carlson said the funding for the various projects on the project list was competitive on both the State and federal level and the completion of the parkway depended on when funding became available. Mr. Pap8 clarified that the only parkway phase in the STIP was Unit I-A. He asked if it had wetland implications. Ms. Childs said that there were about five acres impacted, most of which was already designated for development in the WEWP. Mr. Pap8 determined from Emily Jerome of the City Attorney's Office that she believed the amendments before the council were legally defensible. Ms. Jerome wanted to reserve the opportunity to make changes to the findings in response to the testimony and adopting official questions, if needed. Mr. Meisner believed the parkway would continue to be litigated into the far future. He asked if Ms. Childs felt comfortable with the findings as they were currently drafted with respect to the land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Ms. Childs said yes; LUBA would consider the evidence in the record and the findings. She thought there was substantial evidence in the record that would be easier for LUBA to find if the City provided findings for some of the other policies. Mr. Meisner asked Ms. Childs her sense of when the SEIS would be complete. Ms. Childs said that the BLM had, in correspondence with ODOT, indicated a number of steps it wanted to see MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2002 Page 4 Work Session before it could sign off on a Record of Decision. Publication in the National Register could happen this fall. The field survey work requested could only be done in Spring 2003, and that work would require additional analysis. BLM had also indicated that it would like a public workshop on the results of that before it signed off on the Record of Division, possibly in Fall 2003. She said that in the case of the National Environmental Policy Act process, lawsuits rather than appeals would be filed. Mr. Meisner asked Ms. Childs her sense of whether the BLM policy waiver would be granted. Ms. Childs said she could not speculate. Mr. Meisner said he was concerned that regardless of what Eugene did, there was a westside transportation problem that would not be addressed by a parkway that would not be built for many years. He indicated that he intended to offer a motion to direct staff to cooperate with a private consulting firm to work on alternative transportation approaches to west Eugene. Mr. Farr thought the issues before the council were simple, and yet the council continued to throw obstacles in the way of the parkway's construction. The council was asking questions that had already been answered. He noted that a frequent argument against the parkway was that it would "blow a hole" through the urban growth boundary (UGB). He asked Ms. Childs to state what the parkway would do to the UBG. Ms. Childs said the parkway would do nothing to the UGB. Mr. Farr said that was what he thought. Ms. Taylor thanked staff for its work and the public for its testimony. She likened the parkway decision facing the council to the decision faced by Macbeth when he was deciding whether to use the opportunity to kill King Duncan, and said that just because the council could authorize the parkway did not mean it should be done. She enumerated Macbeth's arguments against the murder: Duncan was his king, his kinsman, his guest, and a virtuous man--also the consequences would be undesirable for the perpetrator and for the country. She said that the arguments against the parkway are that it would lead to sprawl, require exemptions to the land use goals, destroy wetlands, constitute a misuse of federal money used to purchase the wetlands, would lead to degradation of water quality and habitat, threaten endangered species, and would detract from an educational asset. She said the parkway would have an effect on generations to come. Ms. Taylor said that in Macbeth's case the other side was ambition; in the parkway's case it was profit for some. Ms. Nathanson said there would be impacts to the wetlands, and those impacts would be mitigated so the result was more continuous wetlands than those impacted. The wetlands would be bisected, but they were already bisected by the railroad corridor. She said that the parkway was a hard decision for the council. There was public opinion to be considered, two votes, and serious technical and environmental issues. She said a few years ago ©D©T, to reduce the impact on the wetlands, changed the proposed alignment from the south to the north. She said that resulted in the situation the community was in now. ©D©T had come up with a better plan than the original plan, but was now feeling the ramifications of the timing issues that existed in regard to the earlier WEWP amendments package. Ms. Nathanson said that rather than develop an alternative at this time, she preferred to initiate the parkway project and then commit to development of a set of strategies to address safety, congestion, and aesthetic concerns in west Eugene. Many ideas had been mentioned, and she thought the council should authorize work to go forward. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2002 Page 5 Work Session Mayor Torrey reviewed the United Front's long-time efforts to secure federal funding for the acquisition of wetlands in west Eugene for the express purpose of forwarding the goal of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan to balance development with protection. He said that the WEWP was a national model. Mayor Torrey said that on the most recent United Front trip, the City was told that further acquisition funding was unlikely to be available because the BLM had other western priorities. From the beginning, the funding for acquisition of wetlands was predicated on the need for protection of the environment and the need to continue to develop in west Eugene. He noted that throughout the time the City had been seeking money for land acquisition, the federal government was made aware of the pending construction of the parkway. Mayor Torrey noted that representatives of the State of Wisconsin intend to introduce a bill in Congress to address some of the questions that Mr. Kelly raised about project phasing. Mayor Torrey solicited another round of council comments. Mr. Kelly questioned whether ©TIA II would provide any additional money given that the I- 5/Beltline project was likely to cost much more than it was budgeted for now. Mr. Kelly asked Ms. Childs if the findings could be in legislative format. Ms. Childs said yes. Mr. Kelly said Ms. Childs' response regarding the parkway's impact on the UGB was technically correct, but the findings stated it could facilitate development and encourage rural development. He believed that the existence of the parkway was likely to contribute to sprawl, leading to expansion of the UGB.. Mr. Kelly acknowledged the railroad corridor adjacent to the proposed alignment, but said there was a great deal of difference between a train corridor with two trains daily and a highway carrying thousands of automobiles. Mr. Kelly said that the council had been told several times that the parkway had been assumed in land use planning for several years, and he had asked why that was not included in the findings of major land use decisions that had happened. The staff response in Response Document 2 was that the Parkway was an implicit factor in many decisions. He did not think that was sufficient for land use findings, and said he wished he had a better sense of how the parkway was assumed in land use planning. He acknowledged that staff had indicated the project was specifically mentioned in one set of findings. Mr. Fart asked where the vehicles that would use the parkway in the future would go if it was not to be built. He referred to the map and pointed out units 2-A and 2-B, and the location of the railroad. He said there was a barrier in place with the railroad already, and he did not perceive the parkway to have the major impact people stated. Regarding the sprawl of concern to Mr. Kelly, Mr. Fart did not see it happening. He was more concerned about sprawl in other areas of the community. Mr. Rayor said that since the inception of the project, there had been growing public awareness of the environmental issues involved. The parkway alignment had been moved in reaction to those issues. He believed the parkway was a good project in the wrong place. It had been in trouble from the beginning because it was conceived before the no national net loss policy regarding wetlands was established. He noted the EPA's support for a optimized alignment, which he also MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2002 Page 6 Work Session supported, but there was too much momentum for pushing the parkway through the wetlands. He agreed with those who stated that the project would encounter many problems in the future, and said in the future the public vote would not matter. Mr. Rayor said that he had asked many environmental questions related to the project and before this point the State had been reluctant to answer them. He said the 1997 SEIS was the weakest he had seen; it did not even address the laws in place at that time. Mr. Rayor said that the decision facing the council was a policy and land use decision; his decision would be based on the findings and the merits of the case rather than on any ex parte contacts. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Rayor and Mr. Meisner that the final decision regarding the parkway would be out of local hands. She said that it was almost as though the community was being asked to rubber stamp the project to help share some of the "heat" for the project. She did not think the council had sufficient information to approve the amendments being proposed. She said that ODOT could build the project if it really wanted to. She questioned the FHWA and State deadlines and requirement for approval before the mitigation plan had been prepared, before the revised findings were prepared, and before the National Environmental Policy Act findings and SEIS was done. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Childs confirmed that a decision to hold a public hearing on a wetland fill permit was at the discretion of the ACOE, but she believed the ACOE would get enough input to spur it to hold hearings. Ms. Bettman said that all the councilors were assuming there would be appeals and litigation, and asked what would happen to the $17 million for the first phase of the parkway given the delay that those actions would cause. Ms. Childs said that the State indicated that was a decision of the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC). She hoped that subject would be discussed at the OTC meeting in August 2002 if the amendments moved forward. Ms. Bettman asked what happened to the wetlands designated for development along the right-of- way of the approved design. Ms. Childs said that some were conterminous with the right-of-way for the modified project; in terms of those wetlands in the southern alignment, they were redesignated for protection in the 2000 WEWP amendments package. Ms. Taylor said that experts have told the council that, generally, mitigation did not work. She said that if the council approved the amendments, it would open the way to years of litigation that would cost the City money that was better used for other purposes. If the amendments were defeated, the projects that would be postponed to facilitate construction of the WEP could be brought forward. She called for an end to the process. Mr. Pap8 questioned Ms. Taylor's statement that wetlands mitigation does not work. That was not his experience in mitigating wetlands. He said he was not an expert, and neither was Ms. Taylor. Ms. Childs said that Neil Bj0rklund of the Planning and Development Department had indicated to the planning commissions that the local approach taken to mitigation and restoration of contiguous wetlands was working and was the best approach to mitigation. Mr. Carlson said that the wetlands in the northern alignment were either existing mitigation sites or prior converted wetlands that were in agricultural use up until a few years ago. If the Parkway was constructed, those sites would be mitigated and restored. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2002 Page 7 Work Session Mayor Torrey reiterated the long history of the project and encouraged the council to be prepared to make a decision on July 8, 2002. He did not accept the argument regarding potential legal challenges, pointing out that the same could be said for the tree preservation ordinance or the Land Use Code Update. He believed that all the councilors were prepared to vote now. He said that he would vote for the parkway if needed. Regarding the potential of future OTIA funding, he said that depend on the community's readiness to move forward with projects. He said that Eugene had the reputation of never being ready to move forward. If the project at Beltline/I-5 was not funded through OTIA, the community would lose out on millions in State funding and would end up with only the relatively small Highway 126 project. Mayor Torrey said that the wetlands that would be impacted would be mitigated. Mayor Torrey said that no one was talking about the impact of nodal development on Royal Avenue if the parkway was not built. Mayor Torrey said that everyone appeared to recognize that there was a transportation problem in west Eugene. He feared that in the absence of the parkway, motorists would avoid Highway 126 and choose to reach the community through its residential neighborhood to the south or through the Royal Avenue node. Mayor Torrey called for another round of council comments. Mr. Kelly called the council's attention to testimony the council received that suggested that the intersection at Beltline and the parkway would not work. He said that the SEIS indicated that the intersection would be "beyond gridlock" in 2015. He believed that the amendment failed on that basis alone. Mr. Rayor noted that federal and State law had been improved by the inclusion of monitoring requirements for wetlands mitigation. In this case, ODOT would have responsibility for monitoring the mitigated wetlands. Ms. Taylor acknowledged she was not an expert on wetlands. She said that she believed she had sufficient information from conferences and trainings she attended to determine what experts to listen to. She said that restoration was not the same as mitigation. Speaking to Ms. Taylor, Mr. Farr said "Birnam Wood was indeed marching to Dunsinane"; it was time to move forward. Speaking to the mayor's comments, Ms. Bettman said that litigation was only an issue because it would cause delays, which could jeopardize the funding now in place. Ms. Bettman agreed that the council should act because it had no time to identify all the problems and inconsistencies in the amendments. She said that one of the largest issues that was yet to be addressed was the number of automobiles that would be traveling on 6th and 7th avenues to access 1-105 if the parkway was built. Ms. Nathanson asked for information on the eastern gateway site and the success of mitigation there. Mayor Torrey did not think the impact on 6th and 7th avenues would be as great as envisioned by Ms. Bettman. He noted the impact that existed now at West 7th Avenue and Garfield Street. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2002 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Meisner, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to provide requested staff access to Crandall Arambula in order to facilitate its study of the potential for transportation and land use strategies in Eugene. Mr. Meisner said that the study was not relevant to the council's vote on the amendments as it could not be completed in time. He believed it was a minimal request. Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Ms. Childs indicated that Crandall Arambula, a Portland- based firm had been used before on the Chase Gardens development plan. She said that George Crandall of Crandall Arambula indicated to her that he would be doing the work involved pro bono because he was aware the issue was contentious and thought it would better serve the community if the person doing the study not be financially invested in the issue. She had discussed with him the information he would need, and believed that his information requests would be pretty easy to respond to. Ms. Childs emphasized that the consultant's work was to be a preliminary scoping, not a major study such as LUTRAQ. Mr. Farr questioned whether the City would get any new information. Ms. Childs said that it was another look at the existing information. Mr. Pap8 indicated willingness to support the motion if it was amended to be more specific about how much staff time was involved. Ms. Childs indicated the request was for four hours of staff time, and she anticipated it would require four to six hours. Mr. Meisner suggested a friendly amendment that the staff be given a total of eight hours to work with the consultants. Ms. Taylor accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Pap8 said he hoped that the motion was not another way to accomplish the goals of defeated Ballot Measure 20-53 and was an examination of new concepts. Ms. Bettman supported the motion. She did not think the council should need such a motion. It was her perception that members of the development community take considerable staff time. She suggested the council consider adopting a policy regarding public access to the staff so that access was consistent. Ms. Nathanson asked the manager for assurance that the motion would not affect the completion of the findings. Mr. Carlson said that he would ensure that did not happen. Ms. Nathanson said that if the point of the exercise was to identify an alternative not involving new road construction, she did not think such a solution would be pragmatic and worthwhile. She reiterated her concerns regarding aesthetics, safety, and congestion, and hoped the consultant's analysis was focused on those concerns. In relation to the vote on Ballot Measure 20-53, Mr. Kelly recalled that following the council's decision to place the parkway on the ballot, it passed a motion directing staff to return with a work program to develop comprehensive alternatives as well, that work program was not yet forthcoming, and the motion was not superceded by another action. Mayor Torrey indicated support for the motion. He hoped to see a viable report, because he thought the council should be open to suggestions to make things better. Mayor Torrey said he was happy to see that a LUTRAQ approach was not being contemplated as it was his perception that light rail was an important component of LUTRAQ's success in Portland. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0 MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2002 Page 9 Work Session Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 1:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Carlson City Manager pro tern (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2002 Page 10 Work Session