Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 09/09/02 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall September 9, 2002 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: David Kelly, Gary Pap~, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Pat Farr, Betty Taylor, Gary Rayor, Bonny Bettman. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. Items from Mayor, Council, and City Manager Mr. Fart had no items. Mr. Rayor noted the behest for the library received by the City of Eugene in the amount of $1 million from Ruel Gierhart. He termed the story behind the behest an incredible one and commended the Council Newsletter article on the topic. Mr. Rayor referred to the blue paint used in the bicycle path at River Road and Beltline, saying he had seen the technology used in Portland and it worked well. He commended the Public Works Department staff for its willingness to be innovative. Mr. Rayor noted the upcoming "Day of Caring" and said he would be participating in a project to connect the Red Cross facility to Trainsong Park. He was pleased to have an opportunity to work on a project that benefitted both parties. He recommended the Day of Caring experience to everyone. Mr. Rayor referred to a letter from the Eugene Tree Foundation regarding the condition of the trees at the library, and requested information about what the project managers had done to address the situation, and if additional requirements, such as a vegetation warranty, could be placed on the contractor. City Manager Jim Carlson indicated that it was his understanding the issue had been addressed to the satisfaction of the project managers. He said he would provide a report to the council. Mr. Rayor expressed concern about the long-term impact of construction on the trees. Mr. Meisner welcomed the council back after the recent recess. He had no items. Mr. Pap~ noted the upcoming anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001, and encouraged residents to participate in the many memorials that would occur that day. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 2002 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Pap8 joined in the remarks of Mr. Rayor regarding the blue paint on the bicycle path. He asked if the issues related to the pedestrian crossing at River Road and Silver Lane was being addressed. City Manager Carlson indicated he would follow up. Mr. Pap8 said that the last link in the East Bank Bicycle Path was nearing completion and he anticipated the causeway associated with the path would be in place for a long time because of its solid construction. Mr. Pap8 noted that he had represented the mayor at the August Metropolitan Policy Committee meeting, during which the issue of categorizing and defining wetlands was brought up. He anticipated interesting discussion and controversy over the issues involved. Mr. Kelly reminded those present of the joint Springfield-Eugene-Lane County ceremony commemorating the September 11 attacks to be held at Island Park in Springfield. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Carlson to provide copies of the final courthouse concept plan to all councilors. Mr. Kelly said the Albany City Council had established a "council listening post" once a week at a mall, staffed for one hour weekly by different councilors. He suggested the council consider establishing such a post at the Valley River Center and the 5th Street Public Market. He invited councilors to let him know if they wished to be part of such a project. Ms. Nathanson said the first meeting of the Parks and Open Space Committee was held a few weeks ago. Its next meeting would include a four-hour tour of City parks and recreation facilities to familiarize committee members with the breadth of those facilities. She anticipated the tour would be eye-opening for members and would help build common understanding. Ms. Taylor referred to the local vehicle registration fee that had been recently discussed and said that Bill Dwyer, chair of the Board of County Commissioners, had indicated to her that the City had not requested further discussion. She wanted to communicate the council's interest in investigating such a revenue source to the board as Mr. Dwyer indicated the board was willing to discuss the idea and consider apportioning the revenues according to population. Ms. Taylor referred to the City's changes to the alarm response policy and called for more public discussion of the issue. She wanted to know if there were alternatives to what was being done. Ms. Taylor regretted the council was not having a Public Forum that evening as the 8 p.m. meeting was cancelled. Ms. Bettman concurred with Ms. Taylor regarding the Public Forum, saying she often encouraged constituents to take advantage of the forum to communicate their issues to the council. She thought the forum even more important given the council's recent changes to its ground rules as they regarded agenda setting. Ms. Bettman noted the upcoming commemoration ceremony at the Fire and Emergency Medical Services facility at 2nd Avenue and Chambers to honor the firefighters and police officers lost on September 11, 2001. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 2002 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Bettman raised the issue of recent fee increases instituted by the Planning and Development Department that affected neighborhood groups and residents. She believed that in many cases they were prohibitive. The fee increases were related to appeals to decisions related to conditional use permits and subdivisions. Ms. Bettman said that such developments often had the impact of degrading the value of a resident's house, often that person's most valuable asset. She thought the City was "very eager" to facilitate development, and she believed that in development situation a resident was generally at a disadvantage compared to the developer. Ms. Bettman said that developers were always asking for predictability, but the City was not giving predictability to those residents who were already invested in their neighborhoods. She said that conditional use permits were rarely denied, and she thought it a taking to diminish the value of a house or neighborhood. Ms. Bettman pointed out that often appeals resulted in a better development. She asked staff to reconsider the appeal fees. Mr. Fart spoke of the recent criticism directed toward the Police Department for its enforcement of the City's camping ordinance and said the department was a professional organization staffed with professionals. The staff worked under policies set by the council and the police had his full support. Mr. Carlson said that the City's first volunteer recognition event that occurred the evening before at Amazon Pool was very successful. It was the City's opportunity to thank its more than 2,000 volunteers for their hard work throughout the year. The event was attended by about 400 City volunteers. A broad cross-section of departments and services was represented. Mayor Torrey referred to the Ducks on Parade promotion and reminded the council that following the Eugene Celebration, the ducks would be auctioned off and the proceeds donated to the charity of the purchaser's choice. Mayor Torrey said that the new school in Bethel would be served by traffic lights as requested by Mr. Fart. He said that the new skateboard park in Bethel was under construction and progress was being made. Work was also proceeding on improvements to Gilham Park. Mayor Torrey said the City had received undue criticism for its enforcement of the prohibition against camping in the public parks. He said that he was not aware of any city that did so much for the homeless as Eugene. He concurred with the enforcement action from a public health perspective. He acknowledged that some people object to the religious nature of the Eugene Mission, but noted that the mission did not turn down anyone. Mayor Torrey expressed surprise at the age of those protesting against the City for its actions at the Wayne Morse Plaza, saying there did not appear to be anyone at the protest over the age of 25. He said that the City's partners at all levels of government could do a better job to assist the City in addressing the issues of homelessness. Mr. Farr said that a new high school, Kalapooya Alternative High School, was also opening in the Bethel area. He hoped that the council could attend the opening ceremony later in the month. Ms. Taylor joined in Ms. Bettman's remarks about the increase in appeal fees. Ms. Taylor suggested that the issue of homelessness be referred to the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations as she believed State shelters were needed to serve the homeless. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 2002 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Meisner concurred with the remarks of the mayor in regard to enforcement of the camping ban, particularly from the standpoint of the environmental health from waste runoff. He said that he had viewed many illegal camping sites along the river and had seen hundreds of discarded syringes floating in the water at one site. He said the City needed to look at the nature of the problem and who was complaining. Mr. Pap~ joined in Mr. Meisner's remarks. He said he ran almost daily along the river and rarely saw camping in the cold winter months. He did not think the community's river front should be dominated by illegal camping in the warmer months. He commended the enforcement actions being taken. B. WORK SESSION: Alternatives for a Geographic Adjustment to Transportation Systems Development Charge The council was joined by Public Works Engineering Data Manager Fred McVey for the item. He said that the work session was in response to council direction the previous November, when the council directed staff to consider a geographic component to the systems development charge. At that time, the Public Works Rates Advisory Committee (RAC) had not included such an adjustment in its recommendation to the council. He said that since that time, staff and the RAC had looked at some different geographic adjustments. He referred the council to the Agenda Item Summary (ALS) for a summation of the options and policy issues. Those options included the following: · Option 1 - Implement policy-based geographic adjustment zones based on planning boundaries, major roads and topographic features and linked to average trip length on all streets; · Option 2 - Implement a geographic adjustment which recognizes a lower average trip length for development within the central area of the City; · Option 3 - Implement a linear geographic adjustment based on distance from the center of the city with development closest to the center paying for the lowest rate and that furthest from the center paying the highest rate; and · Option 4 - Retain the current SDC methodology with no geographic adjustment. Mr. McVey noted that the RAC continued to recommend against such an adjustment. Mayor Torrey called for council questions and comments. Ms. Nathanson thought the AlS clear but more focused on number crunching than on the underlying premises of such an adjustment, which were more within the purview of the Planning and Development Department than the Public Works Department. She said that the AlS did not discuss how trips were analyzed. She pointed out that certain commercial uses located in far west Eugene could reduce trip lengths for residents in that area, and avoided a need for those residents to travel elsewhere in the community for services. She reiterated that she needed to know more about the premise underlying the concept, the analysis, how trip chaining impacted the issue, and how the cost of gas affected how people made trips. She wanted additional insight into how people were using the roads and if the adjustment would accomplish the purpose she believed was envisioned by councilors requesting more information. Ms. Nathanson wanted to know if societal mobility and factors such as school choice impacted the length of trips and the MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 2002 Page 4 Work Session number of trips. She questioned whether the adjustment was a fair way to assess the impact of a development. She had some doubts it was fair. Ms. Bettman said that the issue was a complex one. She thought that large commercial uses on the periphery were attractors and became destination points, forcing the City to provide the infrastructure for residents to reach them. She suggested that the policy issue before the council was whether the City should subsidize development on the fringe, or attempt to recover as much of the cost of infrastructure as possible. She said that what was not paid by development was paid by the taxpayer either in the form of money or diminished services. To access a development built on the periphery, a resident had to drive both there and back; at the current time, the methodology only charged for one-half the trips such development generated because the average trip ends were allocated to the person accessing the development and the other half was allocated to the development. However, it was the decision of the development to locate in the periphery, creating the need for the additional infrastructure. She did not think there was any argument that such decisions had a geographic and economic impact. Ms. Bettman pointed to council policies calling for full cost recovery, and further noted that Eugene was in the lower one- third of Oregon cities in terms of SDC rates. Mr. Kelly shared Ms. Nathanson's concern about the lack of data to support an adjustment. However, he believed that there was a great deal of information to support the concept of a geographic adjustment. He pointed to Growth Management Study Policy 14, which stated that "Development shall be required to pay the full cost of extending infrastructure and services, except that the City will examine ways to subsidize the costs of providing infrastructure or offer other incentives that support higher-density, in-fill, mixed-use, and redevelopment." He said that a geographic adjustment addressed both the first element of the policy by recognizing the higher cost to serve development on the periphery, and by recognizing the need for the fee structure to reflect the lower impact of development in the core. Mr. Kelly thought options 1 and 3 were a way to help implement the policy if it was to have meaning. Mr. Meisner shared the concerns expressed by Ms. Nathanson. He wanted a stronger statement of how each option accomplished the council's goals and how each implemented the council's policies, rather than know how much revenue was raised. He wanted to know why the committee recommended no change in light of the policies the council said it wanted to implement. Mr. Meisner said that he did not know how such adjustments worked. He said that he understood wanting to encourage development downtown. However, he pointed out that people had to travel downtown to reach downtown and it had an impact on adjacent residents, and to the extent the council was encouraging people to travel downtown, it was creating a "commuter transportation hell" for older streets, citing Jefferson, Chambers, and Polk streets in particular. Mr. Meisner said that impact needed to be recognized. He did not want to give up the principle involved but did not know what the options did to accomplish the goals. Mr. Rayor agreed that the issue was complex but he thought it was reasonable to have such an adjustment. He asked City Attorney Jerome Lidz to comment on the legality of the adjustment. Mr. Lidz confirmed that a geographic adjustment to the SDC was legal if there was an engineering basis for the adjustment. He added that the methodology for the SDC should reflect the impact of the development on City infrastructure, so if development in different pads of the city had a different impact, it would be appropriate to charge a differential fee. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 2002 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Rayor said that, assuming the SDCs collected were revenue-neutral, he believed it was reasonable for the City to use SDCs as an tool for central city development. He suggested that the adjustment could also be a planning tool in the Planning and Development Department's toolbox for economic development, and suggested the PDD staff be asked to review the options. Mr. Rayor thought SDCs could also be used as a tool to promote neighborhood commercial and nodal development. He suggested that the council consider discrete exemptions to the adjustment, such as nodal development zones. Mr. Rayor supported options 1 or 3. Mr. Pap~ said that there seemed to be a lot of theory in the AlS without much practical data in support of a geographic adjustment. He questioned the concept that development in one area had a lot more impact on the infrastructure than development in other areas. Mr. Pap~ suggested that it was more expensive to expand services such as sewer services in a densely developed area such as downtown than to extend them to the periphery, so he was having trouble making a correlation between financial impact on the City and a development's location. He was also very concerned about the issue of equity. Mr. Farr suggested that those councilors with more access to downtown had a different opinion on the issue than councilors with less access. His alternative transportation access to downtown was not good. He agreed with the remarks of Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Meisner, saying there was not enough information to demonstrate the need for a geographic adjustment. He believed the council should continue to support downtown while keeping in mind that most Eugene residents do not live there. He did not think that the City should penalize people for living and shopping in locations other than downtown. Mr. Farr said that he was not an advocate of big box shopping centers, having worked in small retail establishments in competition with those businesses. However, he asked where in downtown such a business could locate given that it was already a developed area. Ms. Taylor believed the residential element of the issue was complicated and she thought it would be difficult for the City to find a fair way to charge development. However, she believed that there was no question that a big store on the edge of town generated more trips. She said that such businesses should pay more in SDCs for the additional trips they attracted. In response to Mr. Fart's remarks, Ms. Taylor thought the downtown center, far from being fully developed, had considerable developable land. Mayor Torrey did not think the council should adopt such an adjustment. He questioned whether the City was prepared to respond to the unintended consequences of the approach. He determined from Mr. McVey that the RAC members voted 6:1 against a geographic adjustment. Mayor Torrey said that as a practical matter, there were few remaining locations for big box retail. He thought the effect of the adjustment would be to drive such businesses out of the community, and the impact would be the same in terms of trip length. In addition, there would be no SDC revenues to deal with the impact of those trips. Mayor Torrey said he agreed with Mr. Rayor's remarks about excluding nodal development if such an adjustment was adopted. He noted that the Royal node included no employment base, and suggested that to charge an additional SDC to businesses locating in an area without a great deal of critical mass was not a good idea. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 2002 Page 6 Work Session Mayor Torrey reiterated his long-held belief that the council made a mistake in rejecting a prison site in Eugene as now the prison was to be located in Junction City, which would result in extensive strip development along Highway 99 between Junction City and within one mile of Eugene. He pointed out that there were plenty of places to locate big box development along Highway 99. Ms. Bettman said that at one time she had deferred to the RAC as she considered it a balanced committee, but because of attrition and staff changes, she contended that the RAC was now was "very much dominated" by the development community, leading to the recommendation that no adjustment be adopted. Ms. Bettman said that if complete understanding about the modeling underlying the SDC was required by councilors, they would never reach a decision. The transportation SDC methodology took two years for the RAC to complete and it was very complex. She believed the modeling showed that the further from the core development was, the more new capacity was needed. That infrastructure was not in place now. Ms. Bettman said that regarding the issue of downtown, the fact that people have to drive five miles from the periphery to reach downtown had more to do with the fact that development was allowed that far out within the urban growth boundary, and the City had to build roads to serve it. She said that new development has a claim on capacity whether the capacity existed or not. She said that the issue was not about raising more money or charging more but about recovering the money that the City already invested or had to invest in new infrastructure. Ms. Bettman said that the SDC, even if it included a geographic component, did not come close to 100 percent cost recovery. Mr. Kelly noted that other jurisdictions have already implemented a location-based adjustment so the concept was not unique to Eugene. For example, Springfield assessed lower SDCs for downtown development. He questioned when the council would take a concrete step toward realizing its Growth Management Study policies, as it was now five years after their adoption. Regarding the concerns expressed by Mr. Pap~ and Mr. Farr regarding the lack of correlation between development and impact, Mr. Kelly noted that the discussion in the AlS indicated that average trip lengths are about 15 percent lower than the systemwide average in the inner core, and about 14 percent higher than the average in the periphery. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Rayor there were other places where SDC adjustments could be used as a planning tool. Mr. Kelly expressed puzzlement about Mr. Meisner's remarks about downtown as traffic attractor. He agreed that there was an impact, but suggested that the idea of focusing on downtown was that, instead of having to build capacity throughout the entire community, the City could build capacity on arterials going in and out of downtown. Mr. Meisner suggested that Mr. Kelly defend that impact to Jefferson area residents. Mr. Rayor thought the density of development downtown lowered the cost of service to that area. He supported the geographic adjustment as a way to support downtown development. He advocated for the adjustment to be revenue-neutral. He reiterated his interest in having further PDD analysis. Mr. Meisner regretted the lack of committee minutes as background for the council's discussion. He wanted to have such information. Mr. Meisner asked if the committee and staff had looked at MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 2002 Page 7 Work Session something similar to what Springfield had done, which did not involve a complex geographic adjustment but rather a credit for development in the downtown core. Mr. Carlson suggested that was reflected in Option 2. Mr. Meisner said that was true to some degree, but the option did not completely satisfy his concerns. Ms. Nathanson also was interested in analysis from the PDD staff. She said that in the past, people who lived in south or far west Eugene had to drive to Springfield or to north Eugene for home improvement products. The construction of a home improvement store in west Eugene reduced the impact on streets in other parts of town, because west Eugene residents could stay closer to home to get what they wanted. She suggested a variable for the council to consider was whether a comparable facility existed already. If such a business was the first one to be located in a particular place, it became an attractor. Subsequent developments helped split the traffic. Ms. Nathanson wanted to discuss that issue further. Ms. Nathanson noted that she lived in far west Eugene and had to drive a long way to reach a bakery as there was none in her part of town. If the council was trying to encourage development in downtown with an incentive of reduced SDCs and then slightly increase SDCs outside the core to maintain the principle of revenue-neutrality, as suggested by Mr. Rayor, Ms. Nathanson believed the council would still need to acknowledge that the cost of reducing the cost of development downtown was the increased impact on downtown streets and increased pressure for parking. There would be other costs to consider, such as the construction of parking garages. Mr. Farr said he wished the other councilors could come and live in west Eugene for a while and experience the relative lack of services. For example, there was no sit-down restaurant in his area. He had to drive for miles to have breakfast in a restaurant with his family. He believed that the geographic adjustment being discussed would make it more difficult for such developments to occur in the Bethel area. Mr. Farr said that City needed to accommodate a balance of development or development would occur elsewhere and grow toward Eugene. Mr. Farr said that the community continued to grow. He speculated that most of the councilors had arrived in Eugene after he arrived in 1973. He said that Eugene was the population center of the Southern Willamette Valley. Mr. Farr said that the council was purportedly talking about SDCs but he believed it was really talking about thwarting any kind of balanced development in the community. He reiterated his concern that development would grow into Eugene if Eugene did not accommodate balanced development, leading to the type of sprawl that residents of the Valley of the Sun in Arizona experienced. Mayor Torrey was not opposed to incentives for downtown development but was not supportive of a geographic adjustment. He noted that one of his first council votes was in support of the Winco at Barger and Beltline. He thought that establishment benefitted the traffic system by limiting the amount of miles nearby residents had to drive for groceries. Mayor Torrey questioned the difference between the grocery store at 18th Avenue and Pearl Street and the Albertsons Store off Royal Avenue. He asked why a store located on Royal Avenue would have to pay more than the store at 18th Avenue and Pearl Street when both establishments were serving Eugene residents who lived nearby. Mayor Torrey said that the result of such an adjustment would be to drive businesses away to other jurisdictions and Eugene would have no control over them or benefit from the development fees. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 2002 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to further develop options 1 and 3, considering today's discussion, and to schedule a subsequent work session before year's end. Ms. Bettman supported the motion and encouraged the council to sit down with staff and get some more background on the SDC methodology. She said that she heard councilors argue for decreased SDCs in the urban core on the basis that it was less of a burden on capacity, and if there was justification for reducing them in the urban core there was justification for raising them in the periphery. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend the motion with the addition of Option 2. Mr. Pap~ said he appreciated Ms. Bettman's remarks but that his support for Option 2 would not be based on the burden on capacity but on his interest in assisting downtown. If the City wanted to promote downtown development as Springfield had through its differential rates, it should concentrate on doing that. Mr. Pap~ continued to have a difficult time with the equivalency argument being offered. He noted that there was a small restaurant near the University that attracted residents from all over town, and asked if the City should penalize such a businesses for its success if it wished to expand. Mr. Meisner said he was interested in further analysis of Option 2 but needed to know how the motions worked together. Mr. Kelly said that the motion, if amended, meant the staff would work on all three options. Mr. Meisner said he would support the amendment because of the additional analysis Option 2 would receive. Ms. Bettman opposed the amendment because there were other incentives that could be used to assist downtown. She said that most Capital Improvement Program projects that the City could afford to build were being funded by SDCs and street assessments. Given that she thought SDC revenues were already inadequate, she believed that Option 2 would reduce SDCs revenues, meaning the City would recover less for capacity and have less revenue to invest in its high- priority infrastructure. Mr. Kelly also opposed the amendment because of the revenue issue. If the goal of SDCs was to recover the cost of development, lowering SDCs without another revenue source to supplant the lost revenues meant those costs would not be recovered. In addition, he wished to narrow staff's scope of effort. Mr. Fart said most of the neighborhoods around his residence were not new and they were not served. He pointed out that the entire community paid for the bicycle paths that served south Eugene, so he was unwilling to penalize residents because of where they lived now. He said that no new restaurants would be built in his area if a geographic adjustment was adopted, forcing him and other residents to drive to restaurants in other pads of Eugene. Mr. Fart indicated support for the amendment. Mr. Rayor questioned why options 1 and 3 were revenue-neutral and Option 2 was not. He suggested that Option 2 could be made revenue-neutral. Mr. Rayor reiterated his interest in treating nodes in the same way as downtown. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 2002 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Meisner hoped the council majority would not be so adamant that it refused to include all three options. He believed that if the council rejected the option, the remaining options would also be rejected, leaving the council with the RAC recommendation. Ms. Nathanson thought the options could be presented as multiple zones, two zones (inside and outside downtown), or as a linear adjustment. The council could also decide whether the option should be revenue-neutral. She preferred that the decision be framed in such a way. She was going to support the amendment, and emphasized the council's interest that Option 2 be revenue- neutral. The amendment to the motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting no. Mr. Kelly said that because of the phrase "consider the discussion" he assumed that staff would consider a revenue-neutral approach to Option 2. Ms. Bettman asked if there was a way to make Option 2 revenue-neutral. Mr. Carlson suggested that the City would have to reduce the SDC in the urban core and raise them everywhere else to make the option revenue-neutral, as SDCs were based on the total impact on the system. Ms. Taylor wanted the City to consider treating neighborhood grocery stores and small restaurants in a different way than other businesses. Mr. Carlson responded that particular delineation was already contained in the SDC methodology. The methodology assumed that a large grocery store would generate more trips than a neighborhood commercial store, and that a fast food restaurant would generate more trips than a sit-down restaurant. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Mr. Fart voting no. C. WORK SESSION: Proposed Annual Inflationary Cost Adjustments to Local Systems Development Charges (SDC) and Revisions to SDC Methodologies Document Mr. McVey introduced the item. He asked the council to consider proposed revisions to the SDC to incorporate an inflationary cost adjustment and modifications to the methodology to enable such adjustments to be made administratively. Mr. McVey said staff proposed an inflationary adjustment increase of 3.9 percent. That was based on data from the Construction Cost Index (CCI), which was publishing by the Engineering News Record (ENR). The adjustment would affect all SDC rates, excepting the regional wastewater SDC and the Eugene Water & Electric Board water SDC. Mr. McVey noted a change in the methodology stipulating that modifications to the methodology were to be adopted by the council through resolution rather than by the City Manager through administrative rule, in keeping with recent changes to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS). Also in keeping with ORS, the methodology was revised to state that certain revisions to the SDC, those based on an adopted cost index, could be made administratively, with a cap on such adjustments beyond five percent in a twelve-month period. Mr. McVey reported that the Public Rates Advisory Committee had considered the recommendations before the council and had indicated its acceptance of them. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 2002 Page 10 Work Session Mayor Torrey called for council comments and questions. Mr. Farr said he objected in general to tax increases in an economic downturn. He questioned why government should spend more while the private sector was losing money. He asked how the proposed increase related to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Mr. McVey did not know. He said that the CPI was not related to construction costs, which must be the basis for the SDC. Mr. Farr asked how many cities used for comparison purposes were in Oregon. Mr. McVey said there were none, adding there were no Oregon cities in the CCI. Mr. Fart said that it appeared nothing took into account the fact that Oregon had one of the poorest economies in the nation, and he would probably vote against the resolution. Mr. Meisner indicated support for the resolution. While acknowledging Mr. Farr's concerns, he pointed out that, even in an economic downturn, people continue to want public services and new facilities. The demands on government do not cease. He determined from Mr. McVey that the CCI was predicated strictly on construction costs and did not include such costs as land acquisition. Mr. Meisner said while it was not enough to make him oppose the resolution, he questioned having the same inflation rate for all the SDCs given that the inflation rate for the different underlying elements would not be the same. He added that he was often mystified by the manner in which the inflation rate was arrived at, since it often excluded such basic things as the cost of land and the cost of housing, costs all people generally have. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to affirm the proposed resolution and direct the City Manager to move forth with the resolution adoption process. Mr. Kelly noted that the motion merely made the topic the subject of a public hearing and for that reason alone he could support it. He said he appreciated Mr. Fart's comments about the economy but pointed out that construction costs were rising in spite of the state of the economy. If SDCs were to cover the cost of extending needed infrastructure, the rate must keep pace with inflation. Mr. Kelly believed that Mr. Meisner's points were well-taken, and suggested staff consider the issue of looking at different indices for the different systems in subsequent reviews. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly regarding the timing of the recommendations, Mr. McVey said that the focus of that package was to adopt a new transportation SDC, and the administrative topics had not been processed yet through the RAC. Mr. Kelly said that the struck language in the ordinance appeared to allow for an administrative rate adjustment. Mr. Lidz responded that the 2001 legislature clarified what was a full adjustment and an index-base adjustment and stipulated that index-based adjustments could be made administratively. Ms. Bettman asked Mr. Farr why, given the condition of the economy, the City would reject an SDC increase and burden its taxpayers further with having to pay for the capacity needed to serve new development. They were already paying about 60 percent of the cost anyway. She said that the charge was not a tax, but reimbursement for capacity the City must build to serve new development. She indicated reluctant support for the recommendation. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 2002 Page 11 Work Session Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. McVey that the staff recommendation to the RAC had been for a maximum trigger of seven percent. If a proposed index or inflationary adjustment exceeded the trigger, under the recommendation the City would go through the full resolution process. The RAC agreed it preferred a more conservative figure, and recommended five percent. Ms. Bettman asked if the conservative figure would trigger the process less often. Mr. McVey indicated that out of twenty years' experience, there was one year the cost index was greater than five percent. Mr. Pap~ said that while he was in sympathy with Mr. Fart, he was prepared to support the resolution. He said that the community had experienced rising construction costs, which had flattened since 2000. He noted that few CPIs were as high as 3.9 percent. He asked if the 20 cities surveyed for the CCI were in the northwest. Mr. McVey said Seattle was included. Mr. Pap~ observed that Seattle was a big metropolitan area. He asked if other indices had been considered. Mr. McVey said that staff looked at indexes most relevant to the City's infrastructure. He added that there were not a lot of other cost indices related to those costs. Mr. Rayor supported the motion because he found the proposed adjustments to be justified. In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Carlson indicated staff would clarify before the public hearing whether the City subsidized Iow-income housing SDCs using General Fund dollars. Ms. Nathanson determined from Mr. McVey that the CCI was completely separate from the Producers Price Index (PPI), and staff had not traditionally looked at the cost elements in the PPI. Mayor Torrey determined from Mr. McVey that a school district constructing a new grade school on the site of a former school would be credited for any past development on the site. He determined from Mr. Carlson that any City assistance offered a new hospital in Eugene would not be in the form of an SDC exemption or waiver because of legal equity issues. He further determined from Mr. Carlson that a component of the SDC, the reimbursement component, could be used for preservation of existing infrastructure. Mr. Fart said he thought it made no sense to compare Eugene to larger cities such as those in the CCI survey. He said it was an arbitrary application of numbers because things were not the same in Eugene. Mr. Farr expressed concern about the impact of the adjustment on the local economy. Mr. Meisner asked what indices Portland, Salem, and Medford employed. Mr. McVey said that they generally used the ENR CCI for their construction cost index. Those communities' councils had approved the use of the index. Some Northwest cities use the Seattle ENR cost index, which over time was about the same as the 20-city ENR. He said that local indexes were susceptible to local fluctuations and were more sensitive to local conditions than national indexes. Ms. Bettman noted the RAC's failure to recommend a project-based methodology because it lacked the data to support such an approach. She suggested that unless the City wanted to hire more staff and get its own data, the City had no choice but to use such pooled information. The motion passed, 7:1, Mr. Farr voting no. The council took a brief meeting break. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 2002 Page 12 Work Session D. WORK SESSION: Ordinances Adopting Royal Node Development Area The council was joined for the item by Planning Director Jan Childs and Senior Planner Allen Lowe. Mr. Lowe described the location and size of the proposed node, 191-acre greenfield site located on both sides of Royal Avenue between Carrie Street and Greenhill. He said the site was adjacent to but completely outside the city limits. It was within the City's urbanizable land area. Mr. Lowe referred to the Royal Avenue Specific Plan, included in the meeting packet, saying it guided development in the node. He highlighted some of the characteristics desired for the node in the plan, including a transit stop within one-quarter mile of anywhere in the node; mixed land use patterns, including mixed housing types and residential densities; public places and spaces within the node that could be reached without driving; and design elements that foster pedestrian and transit use. Mr. Lowe said the project projected achieved all those characteristics. Mr. Lowe used a map of the development area to describe proposed development patterns. He pointed out the location of commercial and residential development and identified open space areas. He used the map to note the location of infrastructure improvements proposed for the area. Mr. Lowe noted the complications created by the existence of wetlands in the area and the extensive amount of work that had been done with the regulatory agencies, property owners, and consultants to resolve those issues. The wetlands on the site were of extremely Iow quality, and the mitigation proposed in the plan forwarded the idea of a comprehensive wetlands system without degrading the wetlands. There were no endangered plant or animal species located on the 65 acres of wetlands. About half of the wetland area was proposed for fill, and the other half was to be retained as drainage channels or open space areas. Mr. Lowe noted that the Royal node was one of the pilots the City initiated to test the implementation of nodal development. The project was unique in many respects. Specifically, it contained a large amount of wetlands, it was located outside the city limits, and it was a greenfield site, in comparison to most nodes, which were redevelopment sites. In addition, the number of property owners was limited in comparison to the other nodes. For that reason, the planning process was more specific than other City planning processes. Mr. Lowe doubted another node would resemble the Royal node, making it less useful as a model for the future. It was unlikely any future node planning would be so specific. Mr. Lowe said that the council would be asked to adopt a zoning code for the node, and that code was very specific. It included an adjustment review process that allowed for more development flexibility when conditions called for flexibility. However, the developer was required to follow the principles stated in the plan. Mr. Lowe noted the upcoming joint hearing on the Royal and Chase nodes before the Board of County Commissioners and the council, scheduled for September 18. Mr. Lowe reviewed the actions that would be requested of the City Council and the Board of County Commissioners following that hearing. Mr. Lowe used the map to identify the wetlands designated for protection, mitigation, and fill. Mr. Lowe discussed a policy issue that remained to be resolved, relating to street assessments. The Eugene and Lane County planning commissions had recommended that the street MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 2002 Page 13 Work Session assessments against properties be delayed until annexation of those properties, which he noted was at odds with the assessment policy recently adopted by the City Council and Board of County Commissioners. Mayor Torrey solicited council comments and questions. Mr. Farr generally endorsed the plan. He asked if the affected property owners stood to lose money by the development plan. Mr. Lowe did not believe so. He said that it was likely the City would acquire some land from the owners at fair market value. Almost all the land was zoned for agriculture use now, which was a very restrictive zoning. Mr. Farr said that there had been concern about the plan voiced by the affected property owners, and he would continue to ask questions regarding the impact of the City's actions on those individuals. Mr. Kelly said the plan was a good example of the type of development he supported. He would be excited to see the plan come to fruition. He complimented those involved in the development of the plan, and thought the resulting neighborhood would be a desirable place to live and work. He said there were many things to commend in the plan. Mr. Kelly asked if staff had considered a higher Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the central commercial core, or the potential of mandating that the buildings in the core should be at least two-stow in height. Mr. Lowe said that the .5 FAR was a result of a market study done early in the process that focused on the node and this part of the community. He said that because of its geographic location, this node had different market conditions than other identified nodes. The amount of commercial acreage was supported by the market study; the intensity of development suggested by Mr. Kelly was not supported by that study. He offered to provide the study to the council. Mr. Lowe added that staff's research indicated that .65 was the breaking point between one- and two- stow development. He said that .5 was a widely used standard for other transit-oriented developments around the country. It was not an unusually Iow number for such developments in a suburban context. Mr. Kelly referred to the Orenco Station development in Beaverton, Oregon, and said that it appeared to be above .5. Mr. Lowe said that Orenco Station did not have the same context. Mr. Kelly said it was suburban. While he appreciated Mr. Lowe's points about the market study, he expressed concern that the market study was focused on how things had been. If the City was to treat land as a scarce resource, it needed to look at how things would be in the future. Mr. Rayor asked for clarification of the adoption process as it related to the development of the node. Mr. Lowe clarified that the council would be asked to adopt a set of codes to regulate how development occurred in the area. That would provide assurances to property owners to make them more comfortable with how development occurred. The specific plan would be adopted as findings as a general guide for the City, developers, and the neighborhood on how the area should develop. It was not a regulatory tool, and the council would not adopt it as a plan. Mr. Rayor asked how the City could know that 50 percent of the wetlands on the site would be preserved. Mr. Lowe pointed to the letters in the council packet from the various federal and State regulatory agencies, who would be involved in overseeing any wetland fill permits associated with the node. The regulatory agencies would try to work with the specific plan as a guide for making decisions on individual fill permits in the future. Mr. Rayor asked how mitigation would occur. Mr. Lowe said that the majority of wetlands can be mitigated on-site. The remaining wetlands could be mitigated through the City's bank at the developer's option. Mr. Rayor suggested that, given MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 2002 Page 14 Work Session the City had done so much master planning for the property owners, it should require that mitigation occur through the City's bank. Ms. Nathanson suggested that the master planning effort had increased the value of the subject properties. Ms. Nathanson commended the comprehensive approach being taken to the wetlands issues. She hoped the regulatory agencies appreciated and understood the master planning approach because she believed it resulted in better wetland protections. Ms. Nathanson questioned the County's role in the planning process. Mr. Lowe said that the County would be involved because of its involvement in the Metro Plan amendments process. He said that the City staff also highlighted the assessment policy issue to the Board of County Commissioners. He believed that the property owners wanted the board to be involved, and he anticipated the commissioners would weigh in on all the concerns being expressed by their constituents, regardless of their formal role in plan adoption. Ms. Nathanson asked Mr. Lowe to discuss alleys and why they had not been built in residential developments over the past few decades. Mr. Lowe said that the City's alley standards resulted in a high-cost alley, and in addition alleys were often seen as redundant. The City's alley standards were revised through the Land Use Code Update so those costs should be lower. He noted that analysis had been done that indicated there was a rough equivalency in the pavement required to build a small width alley and the pavement required to build individual driveways in the front of parcels. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding the selection of waterway crossing locations and whether the number was adequate, Mr. Lowe said that vehicle crossings had been minimized to the degree possible and replaced with pedestrian crossings. More vehicle crossings would have been more expensive and would have created more environmental impacts. Mr. Pap8 thought the plan represented both an opportunity and a challenge. He determined from Mr. Lowe that the overall minimum residential density ranges were between 8 and 18 units per acre. The overall projected density was 12 units per acre. Mr. Pap8 asked if the proposed collector system was sufficient to handle that density level. Mr. Lowe said yes. Royal Avenue was already a minor arterial and the future extension of Roosevelt Boulevard would be a major collector. Mr. Pap8 determined from Mr. Lowe that there were two neighborhood parks, and the proposed open space system would function as a passive parks system. Mr. Lowe reported that 90 percent of the residents in the area were within two blocks of a park or open space. Mr. Pap8 asked how streets would be built if the City did not assess property owners for the cost. Mr. Lowe said that staff identified the inherent policy conflicts to the two planning commissions. However, the commissions agreed that the policy could be an incentive for development. The policy was a means of appeasing the property owners, who were particularly concerned about the costs of the development, in assisting with the indirect costs of development they did not really want. Mr. Pap8 appreciated the logic behind the recommendation, but questioned where the money needed to improve the streets would come from. Mr. Lowe said that the costs were not high; based on the first phase of development, the assessments would be about $3,100 per property. The principle in question was more significant than the costs in question. Ms. Childs added that the recommendation was offered in public testimony by the property owners and was not a recommendation from staff. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 2002 Page 15 Work Session Mr. Pap~ determined from Mr. Lowe that about half the 19 property owners were actively engaged in the planning process. All of the property owners received notice of the process. Mr. Lowe said that a significant number were not involved at all. Mr. Meisner believed the potential of the node was incredible. He said that the property was close to a blank palette and he was excited to see what could happen as the plan was implemented. Mr. Meisner shared Mr. Papa's concern about the policy issue related to assessments. Mr. Meisner asked staff to speculate on whether there was market interest in the properties comprising the node and when it would be developed. Mr. Lowe said that a couple of the 19 property owners had expressed interest in selling their property immediately for development or in developing it themselves. Most of the property owners were interested in continuing to live on their properties and selling the vacant portions for development later. Mr. Meisner believed that once owners begin to develop, that would motivate others to develop as well. Ms. Bettman was reluctant to be too enthusiastic about the plan as past City plans had lost important elements of the vision they incorporated as they were implemented. She would reserve her accolades for when the plan received results. Ms. Bettman said the key to nodal development was that it be transit-friendly. She asked if the Lane Transit District (LTD) had committed to serving the area. Mr. Lowe said that LTD was involved in the initial planning process until the first draft plan was produced. At that time the City and LTD agreed that the district would serve the area when demand warranted by shifting its service onto the future Roosevelt extension that would travel though the commercial area of the node. The timing of that shift was unspecified. Ms. Bettman asked the potential for achieving the City's nodal objectives for the Royal node given the adjustment review process and the possibility the State's needed housing statute could exempt a conditional use, partition, or subdivision from the special area zone development standards. She said it appeared that the node could be developed without use of the standards. Mr. Lowe said that any of the provisions provided by State law for needed housing were dominant; the plan was subordinate to the State law. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Lowe said that the development envisioned in the plan would not occur absent the council's approval of the plan. Ms. Taylor asked if the plan was likely to spur development before it would have otherwise occurred. Mr. Lowe said that development would occur based on the provision of municipal infrastructure. Without a plan, development was most likely to occur in a Iow-density suburban subdivision pattern typical of the surrounding area. The plan guaranteed a minimum density of 12 units per acre. Ms. Taylor asked if the plan guaranteed the provision of commercial uses. Mr. Lowe said that the council would be asked to adopt a tax-lot specific map that identified the location of commercial uses. Those commercial uses could potentially be shifted in location to another place in the node. Ms. Taylor asked about the farthest distance between the commercial and residential development. Mr. Lowe said that it was about one-quarter of a mile. Ms. Taylor asked if the plan was an incentive for development. Mr. Lowe said yes, in that the City had already done a great deal of work on the master plan, including the wetland delineation. Pointing to the area map, Mr. Fart noted that development was occurring all around the site. He applauded the plan, but continued to be concerned about individual property rights. He also questioned what happened to historic structures. Mr. Lowe said that was within the purview of the MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 2002 Page 16 Work Session property owners of those structures. He added that people could choose whether and when to annex. There was nothing in the plan that forced the property owners to do anything with their properties. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mayor Torrey suggested that councilors who wished to remain at the close of the meeting could choose to do so to hear anyone who might wish to speak in the Public Forum. E. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of Council Minutes: July 17, 2002, Work Session July 22, 2002, Work Session July 22, 2002, City Council Meeting July 24, 2002, Work Session July 31, 2002, Work Session 2.Approval of Tentative Working Agenda 3. Approval of Resolution 4739 Amending Eugene City Council Operating Agreements and Repealing Resolution 4671 Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Taylor had changes to the minutes and pulled Item 1. Mayor Torrey noted that the changes of Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly had been circulated via e-mail and determined that the adjustments being offered by them to the minutes were acceptable to the remainder of the council. Ms. Taylor requested a slight change to paragraph 2 on page 3 of the July 31, 2002, work session, asking that the word "not" be inserted so the sentence in question read "...resolution referred to and not approved by the voters..." Mayor Torrey determined there was no objection. The motion to adopt the Consent Calendar, excepting Item 3, was approved unanimously, 8:0. Referring to Item 3, Mr. Kelly noted that the start time of the regular meeting had been changed from 8 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. He reminded those present that the change from 7:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. was made because of the reduction in the time allotted for the Wednesday work session. He opposed the change and hoped that the reduction in time could be made up somehow. Mr. Fart favored the change, suggesting that the council was meeting twice as much as it had ten years ago. He thought the council could increase its work session time by exerting some self control over the length of the remarks that were made. Ms. Bettman said she would like to know the size of the budget in the past, and how much more complex issues were now as opposed to the past. She said that people would look back on these changes and say that certain people managed to torpedo accountability in the guise of efficiency and streamlining, but it was really oppressing the elected representatives' ability to talk. She wanted open and public discussion of such changes. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 2002 Page 17 Work Session Ms. Taylor was opposed to both the changes being proposed as she perceived it was restricting public participation opportunities and the council's ability to raise items, thus constricting their constituents' ability to get their councilor to introduce items on their behalf. She said that she wanted the public to have an opportunity to comment on the change, noting she had heard concerns expressed. Ms. Nathanson said that she would support mini-work sessions for threshold-level discussions, rather than seeing agenda items scheduled with considerable staff work. However, the council had not had that opportunity, being put in the position of scheduling a full work session or nothing. Mr. Rayor said that he regretted limiting the Public Forum to one-half hour. He said that often people were outraged about something, and it was not good public relations to turn people away. Mr. Meisner said there was nothing in the changes to the operating agreements that limited the Public Forum. The rules remain the same, and the council still had the opportunity to extend the Public Forum. He did not think that changing meeting times from 7:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. would limit the Public Forum, suggesting that it might mean councilors restrain their remarks in response. The change did not limit public hearings. Items could be continued or scheduled differently. The changes merely meant the meetings ended at a fixed time. Mayor Torrey said he had endorsed the recommendation to move back the meetings to 7:30 p.m. to accommodate the public and give it an opportunity to speak. The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Taylor voting no. F. PUBLIC FORUM Gene Thomas Mooney, also known by the street name "Khi," said he was currently homeless. He said he was elected to represent the homeless camped out on the Lane County courthouse steps. He asked the council to consider a motion to suspend the ordinance involving public sleeping and camping until an agreement can be reached that satisfies both the City of Eugene and Eugene Homeless Initiative. He also asked that a restroom be kept open 24 hours to address sanitary needs of the homeless. Mr. Mooney endorsed the formation of a committee to reach a fair and reasonable solution for all. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Carlson to talk to relevant staff about opportunities for joint discussions. Mr. Carlson said that the City had dealt with the issue for many years and he would like direction from the council on how to proceed. He said that staff would meet informally with the group Mr. Mooney represented. Mr. Meisner left the meeting. Mr. Pap~ asked how many beds the Eugene Mission had vacant. He also asked about churches making provision for the homeless, and the City making information on services available to the homeless. Mr. Farr suggested the possibility that the Council Committee on Homelessness and Youth could reconvene to discuss the current situation. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 2002 Page 18 Work Session Mayor Torrey indicated his belief that Eugene did more than most communities to address the issue of homelessness. The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Carlson City Manager pro rem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 2002 Page 19 Work Session